• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: President Trump: Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Argumemnon said:
Can it not be a big deal AND not racist?
Click to expand...

Suggesting someone was shot for being black while saying that the shooter was not a racist at the same time?


Are your beliefs so fragile that any dissent must automatically be seen as the exact opposite of all your beliefs combined? If I say that piracy is not theft by the legal definition, does that mean that I think piracy is ok? That makes no sense, and simply exposes the insecurity of your position.
Click to expand...

Your identity is so fragile that you have turned racism into the issue you can't talk about.

I have done nothing of the sort. Kindly stop making stuff up about what I say and believe. I've told you what I believe clearly.
Click to expand...

Yes you have. That is the effect here, you can't call racism racism. For example as you define it systemic racism and institutional racism are by definition not racism.

Lets bring it back to the thread, do you think it is fair to consider trump the self described least racist person on earth a racist or not?
 
Babbylonian said:
If you're exhibiting bias, you ought to be able to suss that out. If you can't, then you might need some sort of therapy to increase your self-awareness.

In other words, if someone else can see your "subconscious bias" (based on "race") then you're being a racist. Take responsibility.

Frankly, people throw around the word "subconscious" like it's something magical that can't be controlled or repaired. It's simply not true, especially when people claim that their subconscious is causing them to say things or act in ways that their conscious mind wouldn't condone. Unless you have an actual mental illness or are taking mind-altering drugs, you know what you've done and said; don't pretend that you're out of control.
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to think that you don't have in mind the kind of subconscious biases I mean. There are online tests which show that we associate "good" words with white faces more rapidly than we associate the same words with black faces. Or, at least, that's how I recall the test I took several years ago. Like most people, I exhibited some bias.

I don't throw a sheet over my head or burn crosses in racially diverse neighborhoods, for God's sake. But at least I exhibit some bias.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Suggesting someone was shot for being black while saying that the shooter was not a racist at the same time?
Click to expand...

You are changing the parameters of the situation as you go along. I'm saying, quite simply, that racism is conscious. Not that it's good. Not that it's ok or acceptable or whatever lie or strawman you can come up with.

Your identity is so fragile that you have turned racism into the issue you can't talk about.
Click to expand...

Now you're downright lying. I've specifically said that we shouldn't broaden the definition of racism because we need to be able to talk about it.

Yes you have. That is the effect here, you can't call racism racism.
Click to expand...

You know full well that what I've done is argue for a more narrow definition of racism. That doesn't mean anything more than what is written, and your constant attempts to shame others into submission with strawmen are dishonest and stupid.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
That might be poor wording on your part, but I don't think it's necessarily wrong that seeing someone of Middle Eastern descent might trigger thoughts about terrorism, especially given the current culture. It's natural, when seeing something or someone, to be reminded of certain topics associated with some attribute of that thing or person.

What would be wrong is if you think, "I wonder if this person is a terrorist." It's worse if you don't stop yourself and think, "That would be statistically unlikely. Get a hold of yourself, me."
Click to expand...


There's a scene I remember from some sitcom.

"Do you remember that bearded man you tackled at the airport because you thought he was a terrorist?"
"Yes."
"He wasn't part of a terrorist group, was he?"
"No."
"What group was he part of?"
"ZZ Top."


More seriously, you have the violence against Sikhs, or the Greek Orthodox priests a man attacked with a tire iron several years ago because they were bearded men in robes.
 
Learning from his mistakes is not something Trump is very good at.

Tweet: "The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don't get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!"
 
Firestone said:
Learning from his mistakes is not something Trump is very good at.

Tweet: "The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don't get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!"
Click to expand...

For once however, a Trump tweet is not factually inaccurate, merely very badly judged politically. The Freedom Caucus, with their dogmatic adherence to Tea Party orthodoxy, does threaten to derail the Trump Administration's agenda.

Of course Trump could tailor his agenda to appeal to them - but that will likely lose him support among moderate Republicans (if such mythical beasts exist and if they are prepared to vote against the party to further the interests of their constituents). It's unlikely that The Freedom Caucus will change however.
 
Argumemnon said:
He'd first have to admit to making them.
Click to expand...
Indeed, but look, he is president, not you, not me. ;)

The Don said:
For once however, a Trump tweet is not factually inaccurate, merely very badly judged politically. The Freedom Caucus, with their dogmatic adherence to Tea Party orthodoxy, does threaten to derail the Trump Administration's agenda.

Of course Trump could tailor his agenda to appeal to them - but that will likely lose him support among moderate Republicans (if such mythical beasts exist and if they are prepared to vote against the party to further the interests of their constituents). It's unlikely that The Freedom Caucus will change however.
Click to expand...
These moderate Republicans exist.

The NYT tally showed that the 33 Republican House members who opposed Trumpcare were 15 Hard-Liners, 10 moderates and 8 "others".

Now, he can afford to lose 10 Republicans. But if he goes even further to accommodate the Freedom Caucus, he might lose more.

And yes, I doubt the Freedom Caucus will change, or is afraid of his threats.
 
Last edited:
Firestone said:
These moderate Republicans exist.

The NYT tally showed that the 33 Republican House members who opposed Trumpcare were 15 Hard-Liners, 10 moderates and 8 "others".

Now, he can afford loose 10 Republicans. But if he goes even further to accommodate the Freedom Caucus, he might loose more.

And yes, I doubt the Freedom Caucus will change, or is afraid of his threats.
Click to expand...

That NYT piece is encouraging but the moderate Republicans didn't actually have to cast their votes against the president though - he folded like a cheap deckchair before the matter came to a vote. It's good that they were "minded" to vote against the ACA repeal but who knows whether they would have submitted to arm-twisting in the end ?
 
About the Trump tweet mentioned above:

Mr. Trump’s message on Twitter was not impulsive: Mr. Bannon and his staff have been closely monitoring the president’s posts and using them as leverage in negotiations.

Dan Scavino, an aide who controls Mr. Trump’s official White House Twitter account, recently moved into Mr. Bannon’s West Wing office where he closely monitors social activity by and about the president, according to two officials.

One administration official, speaking as were others on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the meetings, said it was a long overdue attempt to keep conservatives from criticizing Mr. Trump publicly.

NYT
Click to expand...
(bolding mine)
 
I don't understand how a small group in Congress can have the effect the Freedom Caucus has. They don't publicly identify their members (which I find to be both undemocratic and a bit scary) but it's estimated to be about 35 members. How do 35 members in a 435-member group have such influence? They're not even ten percent. Part of the problem is the House Republicans desire one-party rule. They want to pass legislation without any Democratic votes and to do that they can only lose 21 Republican votes.

The silver lining is, as stated above, some of the Republicans are beginning to consider making appeals to Democratic members and creating a bipartisan Congress, If that happened the Freedom Caucus would lose their clout.

So some Republicans are beginning to think democracy might actually work? Who saw that coming? ;)
 
newyorkguy said:
The silver lining is, as stated above, some of the Republicans are beginning to consider making appeals to Democratic members and creating a bipartisan Congress, If that happened the Freedom Caucus would lose their clout.

So some Republicans are beginning to think democracy might actually work? Who saw that coming? ;)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that the GOP wants to negotiate with the Democratic Party and tbh the Democratic Party already had to move so far rightward to get anything done with GOP obstructionism, they may not be minded to move further.

For example, Republicans will want deep cuts to taxes for the rich and deep cuts to entitlements. Democrats don't want to cut taxes unless it's affordable and they'll want middle-class tax cuts and no reductions in entitlements.
 
newyorkguy said:
I don't understand how a small group in Congress can have the effect the Freedom Caucus has. They don't publicly identify their members (which I find to be both undemocratic and a bit scary) but it's estimated to be about 35 members. How do 35 members in a 435-member group have such influence? They're not even ten percent. Part of the problem is the House Republicans desire one-party rule. They want to pass legislation without any Democratic votes and to do that they can only lose 21 Republican votes.

The silver lining is, as stated above, some of the Republicans are beginning to consider making appeals to Democratic members and creating a bipartisan Congress, If that happened the Freedom Caucus would lose their clout.

So some Republicans are beginning to think democracy might actually work? Who saw that coming? ;)
Click to expand...


But they hold the balance of power in close votes. It is like the situation in some countries with a parliamentary system where the vote is so divided that an extremist party with just a few votes can hold the balance of power. I give you the religious parties in Israel as an example.
 
BTW I would not be surprised if Donnie begins to try to sound like a "centrist" since he sees that the ""burn down the house" approach has ran it's course.and in the end it is all about Donnie.
 
.
WAR!! Could this mean the honeymoon is over?!


Trump's House Freedom Caucus tweet draws response from conservative members

After President Trump threatened war against the House Freedom Caucus for 2018 in a Thursday morning tweet, members of the caucus were quick to respond.

Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, took aim at the president’s oft-repeated desire to “drain the swamp” in Washington, a phrase meant to evoke Washington lobbying, big money in politics, and corruption.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-freedom-caucus-members-respond-to-trump-tweet-against-them/
Click to expand...
 
Trump would run so far to the left he'd make Bernie Sanders look like Sam (spit) Brownback if he thought he could get attention and an electoral victory that way.

It wouldn't mean a thing, of course, as he'd betray his followers in a heartbeat to embiggen the fortunes of himself and his loathsome brood, just as he's done in what I am forced to admit is real life.
 
dudalb said:
BTW I would not be surprised if Donnie begins to try to sound like a "centrist" since he sees that the ""burn down the house" approach has ran it's course.and in the end it is all about Donnie.
Click to expand...

Are you saying Donnie is out of his element?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom