You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Bias against Trump
November 27 2024 9.51pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Bias against Trump

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 342 of 573 < 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 >

  

DanH Flag SW2 17 Jul 19 3.00pm Send a Private Message to DanH Add DanH as a friend

Originally posted by ASCPFC

I just get the feeling that football was not quite his game. I think he may have played American Football in college but I could be wrong. I also don't quite see him going down the park as a kid. What do billionaires do? I have no clue. I guess get the servants to play with the kids, have private coaches at tennis or golf etc. Wouldn't want the kids to get dirty.
I guess we have all read the book about how he cheats at golf as he interests us so much. Or perhaps not.

I meant Stirling But probably equally applicable to Trump, the big baby.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
ASCPFC Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 17 Jul 19 3.10pm Send a Private Message to ASCPFC Add ASCPFC as a friend

Originally posted by DanH

I meant Stirling But probably equally applicable to Trump, the big baby.

Sorry, didn't mean to get between you two.
He is a bit but I didn't agree with the Mayor of London ridiculing a head of state. We wouldn't do that to Putin and would barely complain to the Chinese even if they massacred half of Hong Kong. But I guess it is all about playing to the crowd these days. I wonder would we even complain if there was a new Pol-Pot? We certainly wouldn't ridicule him with an inflatable.
Perhaps the Guardian can have a cartoon with Trump as a KKK Grandmaster lording it over those poor Democratic women. Then Khan could retweet it and everyone could 'like' it. That is around the usual level of debate from all sides currently.

 


Red and Blue Army!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 17 Jul 19 3.40pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow

I actually quite like your Anglo-Saxon explanation, but I think you’re giving Trump too much credit - I think that’s far more nuanced than what he meant. Also, as has been pointed out, would he use the same response if a white congressman was against the status quo... I very much doubt it.

I think that's his thought process but you could be right....who knows.

Your 'white congressman' situation is a valid parallel....I can see how you'd think that is 'racist', while I just don't view it like that.

For example, for Trump to be racist he would also want to tell people like Candace Owens to pop on back to Africa....but because she buys into his idea of American civic nationalism he sees her as on his side.

A 'racist' can't think like that....only a civic nationalist can.

How I see it Trump is ethnocentric, it doesn't exclude on skin colour but in reality the majority of people who are going to sign up to it will be from the same in-group......though it isn't a requirement.

Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jul 2019 3.41pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 17 Jul 19 3.57pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by DanH

I meant Stirling But probably equally applicable to Trump, the big baby.

What are you so sore about? Didn't you rip off enough tax for some fatcat company this week or something?

Bean counter PMT?


Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jul 2019 3.57pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Invalid user 2019 Flag 17 Jul 19 8.03pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

There you go bringing colour into it.

These issues arise because they use their 'colour' as a weapon.
It is an us and them stance.
People are continuously trying to gain an advantage by using race. This policy can only ultimately create an opposite response.

Trump would've never told a white American congresswoman holding the exact same views with ancestors from elsewhere to "go back to" their country. He brought race into it.

If your non answer to a racist trope comment is "The 10% (of minorities) are making life for the 90% less pleasant every year." then you're very much on the same page as him anyway, so there's little to add or to be said.

Edited by dollardays (17 Jul 2019 8.18pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Invalid user 2019 Flag 17 Jul 19 8.14pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays


No, people have to be fair about it. Judge someone on what they say, not on what you read into what they say.

Trump buys into the 'American' concept....he's part of the republican civic nationalism that most of the 'boomer' generation still hold to.


Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jul 2019 10.47am)

Just as you should be fair about what he said and clearly meant too. "Trump would've never told a white American congresswoman holding the exact same views with ancestors from elsewhere to "go back to" their country."

His comments were obviously in part based on their skin colour. I believe that you know this, whether you acknowledge it or not, so the argument shifts to the idea that he wouldn't have asked Candice Owens to leave the country so it's not 'really' racist. That he wouldn't lash out at someone in lockstep with his worldview is hardly surprising. The fact that he however 'would', as we see here, lash out in 'go home' fashion if she held different views, but wouldn't and hasn't done so to someone of different ancestry tells you all you need to know.

I know the term 'racist' is used all too loosely now, but you can move to the other extreme. You don't have to desire to rid everyone of a different race from the entire country, even if they agree with you politically, to be a racist or to have expressed a racist view.


Edited by dollardays (17 Jul 2019 8.45pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Invalid user 2019 Flag 17 Jul 19 8.39pm

Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow

In a discussion where it’s been claimed that Trump was referring to ‘allegiances to a different type of society’ rather than race, it’s entirely relevant to highlight that I don’t expect he would say the same thing to a white man who held allegiance to a different type of society - it’s an entirely valid point.

I don’t really want to get drawn into a discussion on wider societal issues around race, but I find the idea that minorities treatment in America is circumstantial a very difficult one to agree with.

It's not even 'I don't think he would....'. It's blindingly obvious that he wouldn't.

As I said before, he attacked and hated a symbol of Americanism, John McCain, mocking his capture and in doing so his torture by a foreign nation. He greeted Putin's murder of journalists, not with condemnation, but with “I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe", and defended Russia hacking and interference over the findings of his US security services on multiple occasions, suggesting that the countries should have a joint cyber security team.

How people interpret what that means, much the same as how they may interpret the attitudes and comments of each of these women (since surprise to some, although they hold similar views they are not one big non white blob, they are individual people) is down to them. However, for those who may have viewed his comments as unpatriotic I don't recall any impassioned cries of GO BACK TO SCOTLAND!! It wouldn't been an absurd thing to say, based on a difference of opinion and direction to the nation, much as it was here. He clearly only said what he said due to race. A calculated move too, a 2020 strategy to frame the party around these women. If other people don't realise that's why he said it, I very much doubt it has escaped the man himself.


 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards Hrolf The Ganger Flag 17 Jul 19 8.40pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by dollardays

Trump would've never told a white American congresswoman holding the exact same views with ancestors from elsewhere to "go back to" their country. He brought race into it.

If your non answer to a racist trope comment is "The 10% (of minorities) are making life for the 90% less pleasant every year." then you're very much on the same page as him anyway, so there's little to add or to be said.

Edited by dollardays (17 Jul 2019 8.18pm)

So if someone released 300,000 tigers into Britain every year and people started getting eaten regularly, would I be Tigerist for pointing out that Britain was now a less safe and pleasant place to live? Or would I just be accurate?

How credible is bandying the word racist about if what is being said is true?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Penge Eagle Flag Beckenham 17 Jul 19 8.41pm Send a Private Message to Penge Eagle Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Penge Eagle as a friend

As the Guardian writes: "Trump set a trap and they walked right into it... Suddenly, Pelosi is shoulder-to-shoulder with AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley. Rather than letting Democrats tear each other apart, and enter the 2020 election divided, Trump has brought them together. And yet that superficial setback for Trump conceals his larger strategic objective." [Link]

4D chess at play.

Edited by Penge Eagle (17 Jul 2019 8.41pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Invalid user 2019 Flag 17 Jul 19 8.51pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

So if someone released 300,000 tigers into Britain every year and people started getting eaten regularly, would I be Tigerist for pointing out that Britain was now a less safe and pleasant place to live? Or would I just be accurate?

How credible is bandying the word racist about if what is being said is true?


In sticking to the point...

Again "Trump would've never told a white American congresswoman holding the exact same views with ancestors from elsewhere to "go back to" their country. He brought race into it."

I am stating why his attitude is racist. If your argument is that it's fine to be racist because you believe that people of certain ethnicity are a danger to you, then you're entitled to believe that.

If someone wants to hold racist views they are free to do so. I'm just highlighting that it is as such with his 'go home' comment.


Edited by dollardays (17 Jul 2019 9.22pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Invalid user 2019 Flag 17 Jul 19 9.08pm

Originally posted by Penge Eagle

As the Guardian writes: "Trump set a trap and they walked right into it... Suddenly, Pelosi is shoulder-to-shoulder with AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley. Rather than letting Democrats tear each other apart, and enter the 2020 election divided, Trump has brought them together. And yet that superficial setback for Trump conceals his larger strategic objective." [Link]

4D chess at play.

Edited by Penge Eagle (17 Jul 2019 8.41pm)

Here I do agree with you, and this is what I stated. It was very clearly a strategy. As I said in my first post of the day, democrats somewhat desperately reel off every race going, because they have an upper hand at gaining those votes. Trump, in his own abrasive 'style', is attempting to shore up his votes too.

It's clearly a racist statement, but not some off the cuff mistake. He wants to frame these women as being the totality of what the democrat party is. As a strategy it's unfortunate but may well work. It's also worth adding that the view held by some Dems that if you're white, you're ultra privileged by default is also racist. If you're poor and struggling with a sh!t job, with zero opportunities, being told how dreamy and easy your life has been, clearly does not reflect who you are in any real sense. Polarised parties seek to simplify the lives of those whose votes they probably won't get anyway, while paying lip service to those that will. He does it, they do it. In neither case does it particularly help anyone or anything, but right now that's the game.

Edited by dollardays (17 Jul 2019 9.20pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards Hrolf The Ganger Flag 17 Jul 19 9.21pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by dollardays

In sticking to the point...

Again "Trump would've never told a white American congresswoman holding the exact same views with ancestors from elsewhere to "go back to" their country. He brought race into it."

I am stating why his attitude is racist. If your argument is that it's fine to be racist because you believe that people of certain ethnicity are a danger to you, then you're entitled to believe that.

If someone wants to hold racist views they are free to do so. I'm just highlighting that it is as such with his 'go home' comment.


Edited by dollardays (17 Jul 2019 8.53pm)

Well if you want to argue the specific point.

The country you are from does not define your race. It is a nationality. Therefore being told to go home is not related to race at all but in fact, in this case, referred to the circumstances in their country of origin.
On top of that, what Trump said has been deliberately decontextualized by the usual suspects.

Now, are you going to respond to my tiger analogy?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 342 of 573 < 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Bias against Trump