Author Topic: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...  (Read 583792 times)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12906
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5000 on: November 22, 2018, 08:46:06 AM »
The White House refuses to guarantee that no video will emerge of Trump repeatedly using the N-word. That is functionally identical to confirming that Trump has used it in the presence of cameras. How the fuck is he not a racist?

(Insert BS argument #___ for why a white person tossing around the N word isn’t racist here.)

Quote
hyperbole, exaggeration, words for effect. He does this with everything. He embellishes to the point of absurdity with almost every issue he talks about. This time he happened to be talking about Mexicans. Underneath the shock value (he got your attention though, didn't he?) is a real problem that needs addressing.

Just like calling Mexican immigrants rapists, using the N word while referring to black people is obviously not racist, it's used to get your attention.  Trump is trying to point out the problem of black people in American society, the same way he's trying to point out the almost non-existant problem of illegal immigrant Mexicans raping your women folk.  Delegitimizing this simply because of the overt racism doesn't make the black people problem go away, or the problem of those lusty Mexicans.

At least that has been the argument made so far.

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2095
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5001 on: November 22, 2018, 09:11:17 AM »
Versatile, please list all the GOOD things Trump has done since becoming president and the actual results from what he has done.

I see nothing this president has done to make America Great Again.

He is negative on everything. He lies about everything.

We were going to get cheaper, better health care and all Repubs have been trying to do is cut it off at the knees.

He can't get off the subject of Hillary Clinton even though it is two years after his election.

He calls people derogatory names and finds glee in it.

He tried to scare the country with the 'evil' caravan people invasion and now that the midterms are over he barely says a word.

He goes to disaster sites like CA wildfires and blames mismanagement of the forests and suggests the floor of the forests need cleaning.

He cozies up to dictators and rejects advice from his advisors to be careful.

He is using an Iphone that is not secure and won't stop using it even though he has been told the Chinese and Russians can intercept the calls.

He doesn't believe in global warming even though experts say there is a problem.

He holds grudges and the Mayor of Puerto Rico come to mind that he despises and has threatened to cut off financial support.

His daughter used her personal email but that is okay and NOT like what Hillary did. Hillary is bad, Ivanka is good.

Oh, I guess one good thing is that he pardoned Peas and Carrots to live happily ever after on a farm somewhere...

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4019
  • Location: Avalon
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5002 on: November 22, 2018, 09:22:58 AM »
This morning Trump was talking about tariffs, and saying that China had been paying billions to the USA because of them.

He really hasn't a clue, has he, that USA tariffs on goods from China are paid by US consumers.

Also, GDP is up 4% in the last quarter under Trump but was going down by the same amount before he came into office - which last is a flat-out lie.

Lews Therin

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2532
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Ottawa
  • Used to be Canadian Ben
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5003 on: November 22, 2018, 09:30:27 AM »
He has appointed large numbers of conservative judges (Which I'm sure republicans will be happy about)

That's at least one good thing. (For republicans)

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5004 on: November 22, 2018, 10:02:11 AM »
The White House refuses to guarantee that no video will emerge of Trump repeatedly using the N-word. That is functionally identical to confirming that Trump has used it in the presence of cameras. How the fuck is he not a racist?

(Insert BS argument #___ for why a white person tossing around the N word isn’t racist here.)

How about:
Quote
Don't know that is a slam dunk in my book but I would be open to more evidence.

big_owl

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 568
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5005 on: November 22, 2018, 10:15:25 AM »
Versatile, please list all the GOOD things Trump has done since becoming president and the actual results from what he has done.

I see nothing this president has done to make America Great Again.

He is negative on everything. He lies about everything.

We were going to get cheaper, better health care and all Repubs have been trying to do is cut it off at the knees.

He can't get off the subject of Hillary Clinton even though it is two years after his election.

He calls people derogatory names and finds glee in it.

He tried to scare the country with the 'evil' caravan people invasion and now that the midterms are over he barely says a word.

He goes to disaster sites like CA wildfires and blames mismanagement of the forests and suggests the floor of the forests need cleaning.

He cozies up to dictators and rejects advice from his advisors to be careful.

He is using an Iphone that is not secure and won't stop using it even though he has been told the Chinese and Russians can intercept the calls.

He doesn't believe in global warming even though experts say there is a problem.

He holds grudges and the Mayor of Puerto Rico come to mind that he despises and has threatened to cut off financial support.

His daughter used her personal email but that is okay and NOT like what Hillary did. Hillary is bad, Ivanka is good.

Oh, I guess one good thing is that he pardoned Peas and Carrots to live happily ever after on a farm somewhere...


Well, one good thing at least - he hasn't started any new wars (yet)

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8238
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5006 on: November 22, 2018, 10:17:34 AM »
Do you want to learn why myself and millions of others believe what we do

I think we already had a pretty good idea, and your vile posts have only confirmed it.  You don't think racism is a thing, so you are happy to support racist people and policies.  No matter how much you deny it, you appear to be a racist.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3507
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5007 on: November 22, 2018, 11:36:43 AM »
Well, one good thing at least - he hasn't started any new wars (yet)

This is definitely a good thing.

Besides that, and the judges, he did sign the tax cut. What are other Trump achievements?

Versatile, let's hear it. Why do Trump supporters support Trump? Is it truly all about judges?

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10169
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5008 on: November 22, 2018, 11:54:19 AM »
Versatile, please list all the GOOD things Trump has done since becoming president and the actual results from what he has done.

I see nothing this president has done to make America Great Again.

He is negative on everything. He lies about everything.

We were going to get cheaper, better health care and all Repubs have been trying to do is cut it off at the knees.

He can't get off the subject of Hillary Clinton even though it is two years after his election.

He calls people derogatory names and finds glee in it.

He tried to scare the country with the 'evil' caravan people invasion and now that the midterms are over he barely says a word.

He goes to disaster sites like CA wildfires and blames mismanagement of the forests and suggests the floor of the forests need cleaning.

He cozies up to dictators and rejects advice from his advisors to be careful.

He is using an Iphone that is not secure and won't stop using it even though he has been told the Chinese and Russians can intercept the calls.

He doesn't believe in global warming even though experts say there is a problem.

He holds grudges and the Mayor of Puerto Rico come to mind that he despises and has threatened to cut off financial support.

His daughter used her personal email but that is okay and NOT like what Hillary did. Hillary is bad, Ivanka is good.

Oh, I guess one good thing is that he pardoned Peas and Carrots to live happily ever after on a farm somewhere...


Well, one good thing at least - he hasn't started any new wars (yet)

He insults allies and pisses them off.   People seem OK with this so I guess it is a "good thing"?  I suppose he wants to go back to an isolationist U.S.?  Just like the one that was so late entering both World Wars?  Then he could cut the military and save his country billions.

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5009 on: November 22, 2018, 02:54:09 PM »
Versatile, please list all the GOOD things Trump has done since becoming president and the actual results from what he has done.

I see nothing this president has done to make America Great Again.

He is negative on everything. He lies about everything.

We were going to get cheaper, better health care and all Repubs have been trying to do is cut it off at the knees.

He can't get off the subject of Hillary Clinton even though it is two years after his election.

He calls people derogatory names and finds glee in it.

He tried to scare the country with the 'evil' caravan people invasion and now that the midterms are over he barely says a word.

He goes to disaster sites like CA wildfires and blames mismanagement of the forests and suggests the floor of the forests need cleaning.

He cozies up to dictators and rejects advice from his advisors to be careful.

He is using an Iphone that is not secure and won't stop using it even though he has been told the Chinese and Russians can intercept the calls.

He doesn't believe in global warming even though experts say there is a problem.

He holds grudges and the Mayor of Puerto Rico come to mind that he despises and has threatened to cut off financial support.

His daughter used her personal email but that is okay and NOT like what Hillary did. Hillary is bad, Ivanka is good.

Oh, I guess one good thing is that he pardoned Peas and Carrots to live happily ever after on a farm somewhere...


Well, one good thing at least - he hasn't started any new wars (yet)

He insults allies and pisses them off.   People seem OK with this so I guess it is a "good thing"?  I suppose he wants to go back to an isolationist U.S.?  Just like the one that was so late entering both World Wars?  Then he could cut the military and save his country billions.

Not starting a new war is not doing a good thing, it is failing to do a bad thing.

There are other bad things he has not done yet:

Mooned the press gallery.
Shot someone on 5th Ave.   Although he talked about doing this.

Actually, I've got brain freeze.   What other bad things has he not done yet?

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2095
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5010 on: November 22, 2018, 03:27:56 PM »
Trump humiliated Jeff Sessions constantly to the public and forced him to submit his resignation "at the Presidents request".

He is now picking on the Judges as Clinton judges, Obama judges because they judged against him.

He is siding with Saudi Arabia over Khashoggi's execution as "maybe they did and maybe they didn't do it, we may never know".

He appoints all his cronies that are only out for themselves which adds to the swamp, not draining it.

He has pardoned Joe Arpaio who committed crimes against prisoners, treated them horribly but all was forgiven by Trump.

When the heat got turned up, Trump declared he hardly knew Michael Cohen (The Fixer) and was just someone who did minor things for him. Trump said he barely knew his lawyer of 12 years.

This is a person who would run for the hills if his life was endangered. He'd leave his family behind to fend for themselves.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8238
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5011 on: November 22, 2018, 03:30:54 PM »
He'd leave his family behind to fend for themselves.

I think that last one is about to be tested, when Don Jr. gets indicted.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5012 on: November 22, 2018, 03:40:20 PM »
He'd leave his family behind to fend for themselves.

I think that last one is about to be tested, when Don Jr. gets indicted.

Trump: "Don Jr., I barely knew him."

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2087
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5013 on: November 22, 2018, 04:16:58 PM »
There will be iterations of "fake news" and "witch hunt" while it only impacts Jr. An attempted pardon will probably also happen claiming the charges were just political anyways. If it personally impacts Trump, then we will see distancing. The most interesting spectator option is if Jr flips.

skp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 86
  • Location: oh
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5014 on: November 22, 2018, 05:13:18 PM »
Trump humiliated Jeff Sessions constantly to the public and forced him to submit his resignation "at the Presidents request".

He is now picking on the Judges as Clinton judges, Obama judges because they judged against him.

[/b]
He is siding with Saudi Arabia over Khashoggi's execution as "maybe they did and maybe they didn't do it, we may never know".

He appoints all his cronies that are only out for themselves which adds to the swamp, not draining it.

He has pardoned Joe Arpaio who committed crimes against prisoners, treated them horribly but all was forgiven by Trump.

When the heat got turned up, Trump declared he hardly knew Michael Cohen (The Fixer) and was just someone who did minor things for him. Trump said he barely knew his lawyer of 12 years.

This is a person who would run for the hills if his life was endangered. He'd leave his family behind to fend for themselves.
If instead of using the word Obama Judge, Trump used the word liberal judge, would he be wrong???  Because I for one believe there are liberal judges and conservative judges or there would not be any fighting over nominations to the supreme court. 

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4019
  • Location: Avalon
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5015 on: November 22, 2018, 05:40:12 PM »
Trump humiliated Jeff Sessions constantly to the public and forced him to submit his resignation "at the Presidents request".

He is now picking on the Judges as Clinton judges, Obama judges because they judged against him.

[/b]
He is siding with Saudi Arabia over Khashoggi's execution as "maybe they did and maybe they didn't do it, we may never know".

He appoints all his cronies that are only out for themselves which adds to the swamp, not draining it.

He has pardoned Joe Arpaio who committed crimes against prisoners, treated them horribly but all was forgiven by Trump.

When the heat got turned up, Trump declared he hardly knew Michael Cohen (The Fixer) and was just someone who did minor things for him. Trump said he barely knew his lawyer of 12 years.

This is a person who would run for the hills if his life was endangered. He'd leave his family behind to fend for themselves.
If instead of using the word Obama Judge, Trump used the word liberal judge, would he be wrong???  Because I for one believe there are liberal judges and conservative judges or there would not be any fighting over nominations to the supreme court.

Liberal or conservative only really matters for the Supreme Court, because that's the only court that can change the direction of legal cases.  All other judges pretty much just follow what the law already is, and the law is the same for all of them.  So yes, Trump is wrong and Justice Roberts is right: for federal judges at the level of those Trump is referring to there are just judges.


Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2095

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2095
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5018 on: November 22, 2018, 09:58:12 PM »
Trump has not revealed his tax returns even when he said he would. Claims for years he is being audited, government says he can show them anyway. He refuses to do so. What is he hiding?

Trump has not visited the troops that have been deployed overseas since being president. What is he afraid of?

Trump has insulted Gold Star families (who have lost children to war), John McCain (who was a prisoner of war) and Bill McRaven (who's team killed Bin Laden). This is from a man who somehow dodged military service many times after finally finding a doctor who said he had bone spurs in his foot.






Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 118
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5019 on: November 23, 2018, 09:36:41 AM »
Many of your examples given for overt racism don't hold water with me and I really don't feel like itemizing each one but let's address one of the easy ones. Calling Elizabeth Warren Pocohantas is not racist, it's actually quite funny because he is calling out a very liberal Democrat on the hypocrisy of appropriating another's culture for gain, something she should own up to. Native Americans should be angry with her, not Trump.

If you don't believe that calling a woman with proven Native American ancestry "Pocahontas" is racist, (and in fact think it's funny) then we don't really need to keep discussing this.  Contrary to your claims, you are racist.  Your support of Trump would therefore fit the stereotype you're saying is unfair.

Goodness gracious, bless your heart. Is this your gotcha moment where once and for all you've proven me a racist?

Let's recap, Elizabeth Warren, who by her own admission and test results  (and wow did she play into the hands of Trump on that one) is at best 4 to 5 generations removed from any native american ancestry. We are talking hundreds of years of separation between an ancestor and her current life. She has absolutely no connection whatsoever to Native Americans. None. There is a reason tribes within the United States require a certain amount of Indian blood for them to consider somebody a member of their tribe. I noticed you have failed to mention that certain tribes, namely the Cherokee, have asked her to stop insulting them with her dubious claims of affiliation. Is Warren a racist?

But that didn't stop her from claiming minority status for personal gain. It's documented, it's there. When Trump calls her Pocohantus he is highlighting her poor behavior, especially coming from a liberal championing minority causes. What makes it funny is that instead of owning up to her poor behavior and hypocrisy, she continues to double-down (muh high cheek bones), and much like you wants to paint Trump as the bad guy here pulling the racism card. Is Trump insensitive? Yes, and he should out of respect stop using Pocohantus as a punchline but the onus here is on Warren. She has the power to put this issue to bed with a simple apology.

A few days ago I opened my first post with an admonishment. Not every Trump supporter is an idiot and not every Trump supporter is a racist. That should be self-evident but here I am having to argue this issue again.

Firstly, people like you have cheapened the meaning of the word racist. It has no gravitas, and has become a running meme, a running joke through its incredible misuse. You guys have taken the power away from it by applying it to anybody that doesn't march in lock-step with your very broad and many times changing definition. You should consider stopping that because this behavior will ultimately cause you more harm than someone like me, and intolerance is intolerance, and people remember which side treated them like shit. Now before you start typing a response to all of the abuses the other side is guilty of, I want you to stop and consider what I have just written. Painting broad swaths of people with cheap labels has consequences. And yes, both sides are guilty of this but you are the one that called me racist. ;)

Secondly, this habit of attributing motive to every perceived slight has got to stop. You don't have the power to read minds or intimately know why a person does what they do. Nor do I, but in the absence of mind-reading we make calculated guesses based on words and/or actions. What is interesting is that two people can witness the same event and can come up with two wildly different explanations of what just occurred. As mature adults we must account for this and take this into consideration. Before I start calling people names I have the responsibility to consider why someone would believe what they believe, even if I disagree with their interpretation. This world is nuanced and while some issues are black and white, there still is a tremendous amount of gray we have to navigate.

Thirdly, I would ask you to honor your agreement that you signed stating that you wouldn't insult or defame other posters. As the mods seem to be absent from this particular thread I am forced to implement my own rules here: If you continue to personally insult me than I am going to stop responding to any thing you have to offer. I have been very forthright in my answers to your baiting questions, let's be honest here, but if I feel you aren't acting in good faith going forward then I am writing you off.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4019
  • Location: Avalon
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5020 on: November 23, 2018, 09:47:15 AM »
Many of your examples given for overt racism don't hold water with me and I really don't feel like itemizing each one but let's address one of the easy ones. Calling Elizabeth Warren Pocohantas is not racist, it's actually quite funny because he is calling out a very liberal Democrat on the hypocrisy of appropriating another's culture for gain, something she should own up to. Native Americans should be angry with her, not Trump.

If you don't believe that calling a woman with proven Native American ancestry "Pocahontas" is racist, (and in fact think it's funny) then we don't really need to keep discussing this.  Contrary to your claims, you are racist.  Your support of Trump would therefore fit the stereotype you're saying is unfair.

Goodness gracious, bless your heart. Is this your gotcha moment where once and for all you've proven me a racist?

Let's recap, Elizabeth Warren, who by her own admission and test results  (and wow did she play into the hands of Trump on that one) is at best 4 to 5 generations removed from any native american ancestry. We are talking hundreds of years of separation between an ancestor and her current life. She has absolutely no connection whatsoever to Native Americans. None. There is a reason tribes within the United States require a certain amount of Indian blood for them to consider somebody a member of their tribe. I noticed you have failed to mention that certain tribes, namely the Cherokee, have asked her to stop insulting them with her dubious claims of affiliation. Is Warren a racist?

4 or 5 generations is not "hundreds of years".  Elizabeth Warren might very well have known a grandparent (x4 generation) who knew the child (x16 generation) of her native American ancestor (x32 generation).   Some families hold on to the stories of their ancestors -for instance, my father, born in 1906, was taught to read by his great aunt who was born in 1825, well within the time period for Elizabeth Warren's ancestor.  I am not at all surprised that the story of such an ancestor has reached Ms Warren or that it turned out to be true.

As far as I know, Ms Warren has claimed native American ancestry but not membership of any particular tribe.  As to whether that ancestry in general has any particular meaning, probably not much - except that she is slightly less of an interloper on American soil than her accusers perhaps are.  Including the racist Trump.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12906
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5021 on: November 23, 2018, 10:04:15 AM »
Many of your examples given for overt racism don't hold water with me and I really don't feel like itemizing each one but let's address one of the easy ones. Calling Elizabeth Warren Pocohantas is not racist, it's actually quite funny because he is calling out a very liberal Democrat on the hypocrisy of appropriating another's culture for gain, something she should own up to. Native Americans should be angry with her, not Trump.

If you don't believe that calling a woman with proven Native American ancestry "Pocahontas" is racist, (and in fact think it's funny) then we don't really need to keep discussing this.  Contrary to your claims, you are racist.  Your support of Trump would therefore fit the stereotype you're saying is unfair.

Goodness gracious, bless your heart. Is this your gotcha moment where once and for all you've proven me a racist?

Let's recap, Elizabeth Warren, who by her own admission and test results  (and wow did she play into the hands of Trump on that one) is at best 4 to 5 generations removed from any native american ancestry. We are talking hundreds of years of separation between an ancestor and her current life. She has absolutely no connection whatsoever to Native Americans. None. There is a reason tribes within the United States require a certain amount of Indian blood for them to consider somebody a member of their tribe. I noticed you have failed to mention that certain tribes, namely the Cherokee, have asked her to stop insulting them with her dubious claims of affiliation. Is Warren a racist?

But that didn't stop her from claiming minority status for personal gain. It's documented, it's there. When Trump calls her Pocohantus he is highlighting her poor behavior, especially coming from a liberal championing minority causes. What makes it funny is that instead of owning up to her poor behavior and hypocrisy, she continues to double-down (muh high cheek bones), and much like you wants to paint Trump as the bad guy here pulling the racism card. Is Trump insensitive? Yes, and he should out of respect stop using Pocohantus as a punchline but the onus here is on Warren. She has the power to put this issue to bed with a simple apology.

A few days ago I opened my first post with an admonishment. Not every Trump supporter is an idiot and not every Trump supporter is a racist. That should be self-evident but here I am having to argue this issue again.

Firstly, people like you have cheapened the meaning of the word racist. It has no gravitas, and has become a running meme, a running joke through its incredible misuse. You guys have taken the power away from it by applying it to anybody that doesn't march in lock-step with your very broad and many times changing definition. You should consider stopping that because this behavior will ultimately cause you more harm than someone like me, and intolerance is intolerance, and people remember which side treated them like shit. Now before you start typing a response to all of the abuses the other side is guilty of, I want you to stop and consider what I have just written. Painting broad swaths of people with cheap labels has consequences. And yes, both sides are guilty of this but you are the one that called me racist. ;)

Secondly, this habit of attributing motive to every perceived slight has got to stop. You don't have the power to read minds or intimately know why a person does what they do. Nor do I, but in the absence of mind-reading we make calculated guesses based on words and/or actions. What is interesting is that two people can witness the same event and can come up with two wildly different explanations of what just occurred. As mature adults we must account for this and take this into consideration. Before I start calling people names I have the responsibility to consider why someone would believe what they believe, even if I disagree with their interpretation. This world is nuanced and while some issues are black and white, there still is a tremendous amount of gray we have to navigate.

Thirdly, I would ask you to honor your agreement that you signed stating that you wouldn't insult or defame other posters. As the mods seem to be absent from this particular thread I am forced to implement my own rules here: If you continue to personally insult me than I am going to stop responding to any thing you have to offer. I have been very forthright in my answers to your baiting questions, let's be honest here, but if I feel you aren't acting in good faith going forward then I am writing you off.

If you would like to provide the documentation proving that Warren benefited from claiming a minority status we can talk about that.  I assume that it's hanging out somewhere with Obama's real birth certificate, and the evidence that the central park 5 should have been convicted.

But that's all really beside the point.  The way that Trump has repeatedly used the term 'Pocahontas' is a racial slur.  That's not my opinion, it's the opinion of the National Congress for American Indians.  (https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/ncai-condemns-president-trump-s-derogatory-use-of-pocahontas--KArFACFlku_jlYnYVYNHg/)  Trump has continued to use the slur after being asked not to.

Why exactly do you believe that you are a better judge of what is racist towards Native people than the National Congress for American Indians?

There's also the fact that Trump is explicitly calling her 'Pocahontas' because he believes that the name itself is an insult:

“She is one of the least productive senators in the United States Senate. We call her ‘Pocahontas’ for a reason.” - https://www.facebook.com/cnbc/posts/she-is-one-of-the-least-productive-senators-in-the-united-states-senate-we-call-/10154439052924369/

« Last Edit: November 23, 2018, 10:42:00 AM by GuitarStv »

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 486
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5022 on: November 23, 2018, 10:13:50 AM »
Goodness gracious, bless your heart. Is this your gotcha moment where once and for all you've proven me a racist?

Let's recap, Elizabeth Warren, who by her own admission and test results  (and wow did she play into the hands of Trump on that one) is at best 4 to 5 generations removed from any native american ancestry. We are talking hundreds of years of separation between an ancestor and her current life. She has absolutely no connection whatsoever to Native Americans. None. There is a reason tribes within the United States require a certain amount of Indian blood for them to consider somebody a member of their tribe. I noticed you have failed to mention that certain tribes, namely the Cherokee, have asked her to stop insulting them with her dubious claims of affiliation. Is Warren a racist?

But that didn't stop her from claiming minority status for personal gain. It's documented, it's there. When Trump calls her Pocohantus he is highlighting her poor behavior, especially coming from a liberal championing minority causes. What makes it funny is that instead of owning up to her poor behavior and hypocrisy, she continues to double-down (muh high cheek bones), and much like you wants to paint Trump as the bad guy here pulling the racism card. Is Trump insensitive? Yes, and he should out of respect stop using Pocohantus as a punchline but the onus here is on Warren. She has the power to put this issue to bed with a simple apology.

A few days ago I opened my first post with an admonishment. Not every Trump supporter is an idiot and not every Trump supporter is a racist. That should be self-evident but here I am having to argue this issue again.

Firstly, people like you have cheapened the meaning of the word racist. It has no gravitas, and has become a running meme, a running joke through its incredible misuse. You guys have taken the power away from it by applying it to anybody that doesn't march in lock-step with your very broad and many times changing definition. You should consider stopping that because this behavior will ultimately cause you more harm than someone like me, and intolerance is intolerance, and people remember which side treated them like shit. Now before you start typing a response to all of the abuses the other side is guilty of, I want you to stop and consider what I have just written. Painting broad swaths of people with cheap labels has consequences. And yes, both sides are guilty of this but you are the one that called me racist. ;)

Secondly, this habit of attributing motive to every perceived slight has got to stop. You don't have the power to read minds or intimately know why a person does what they do. Nor do I, but in the absence of mind-reading we make calculated guesses based on words and/or actions. What is interesting is that two people can witness the same event and can come up with two wildly different explanations of what just occurred. As mature adults we must account for this and take this into consideration. Before I start calling people names I have the responsibility to consider why someone would believe what they believe, even if I disagree with their interpretation. This world is nuanced and while some issues are black and white, there still is a tremendous amount of gray we have to navigate.

Thirdly, I would ask you to honor your agreement that you signed stating that you wouldn't insult or defame other posters. As the mods seem to be absent from this particular thread I am forced to implement my own rules here: If you continue to personally insult me than I am going to stop responding to any thing you have to offer. I have been very forthright in my answers to your baiting questions, let's be honest here, but if I feel you aren't acting in good faith going forward then I am writing you off.

If you would like to provide the documentation proving that Warren benefited from claiming a minority status we can talk about that.  I assume that it's hanging out somewhere with Obama's real birth certificate, and the evidence that the central park 5 should have been convicted.

But that's all really beside the point.  The way that Trump has repeatedly used the term 'Pocahontas' is a racial slur.  That's not my opinion, it's the opinion of the National Congress for American Indians.  (https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/ncai-condemns-president-trump-s-derogatory-use-of-pocahontas--KArFACFlku_jlYnYVYNHg/)  Trump has continued to use the slur after being asked not to.

Why exactly do you believe that you are a better judge of what is racist towards Native people than the National Congress for American Indians?

Even if @Versatile could prove that she benefitted from it I'd like to know how he determined that personal gain was her motive.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2853
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5023 on: November 23, 2018, 10:31:39 AM »
Many of your examples given for overt racism don't hold water with me and I really don't feel like itemizing each one but let's address one of the easy ones. Calling Elizabeth Warren Pocohantas is not racist, it's actually quite funny because he is calling out a very liberal Democrat on the hypocrisy of appropriating another's culture for gain, something she should own up to. Native Americans should be angry with her, not Trump.

If you don't believe that calling a woman with proven Native American ancestry "Pocahontas" is racist, (and in fact think it's funny) then we don't really need to keep discussing this.  Contrary to your claims, you are racist.  Your support of Trump would therefore fit the stereotype you're saying is unfair.

Goodness gracious, bless your heart. Is this your gotcha moment where once and for all you've proven me a racist?

Let's recap, Elizabeth Warren, who by her own admission and test results  (and wow did she play into the hands of Trump on that one) is at best 4 to 5 generations removed from any native american ancestry. We are talking hundreds of years of separation between an ancestor and her current life. She has absolutely no connection whatsoever to Native Americans. None. There is a reason tribes within the United States require a certain amount of Indian blood for them to consider somebody a member of their tribe. I noticed you have failed to mention that certain tribes, namely the Cherokee, have asked her to stop insulting them with her dubious claims of affiliation. Is Warren a racist?

But that didn't stop her from claiming minority status for personal gain. It's documented, it's there. When Trump calls her Pocohantus he is highlighting her poor behavior, especially coming from a liberal championing minority causes. What makes it funny is that instead of owning up to her poor behavior and hypocrisy, she continues to double-down (muh high cheek bones), and much like you wants to paint Trump as the bad guy here pulling the racism card. Is Trump insensitive? Yes, and he should out of respect stop using Pocohantus as a punchline but the onus here is on Warren. She has the power to put this issue to bed with a simple apology.

A few days ago I opened my first post with an admonishment. Not every Trump supporter is an idiot and not every Trump supporter is a racist. That should be self-evident but here I am having to argue this issue again.

Firstly, people like you have cheapened the meaning of the word racist. It has no gravitas, and has become a running meme, a running joke through its incredible misuse. You guys have taken the power away from it by applying it to anybody that doesn't march in lock-step with your very broad and many times changing definition. You should consider stopping that because this behavior will ultimately cause you more harm than someone like me, and intolerance is intolerance, and people remember which side treated them like shit. Now before you start typing a response to all of the abuses the other side is guilty of, I want you to stop and consider what I have just written. Painting broad swaths of people with cheap labels has consequences. And yes, both sides are guilty of this but you are the one that called me racist. ;)

Secondly, this habit of attributing motive to every perceived slight has got to stop. You don't have the power to read minds or intimately know why a person does what they do. Nor do I, but in the absence of mind-reading we make calculated guesses based on words and/or actions. What is interesting is that two people can witness the same event and can come up with two wildly different explanations of what just occurred. As mature adults we must account for this and take this into consideration. Before I start calling people names I have the responsibility to consider why someone would believe what they believe, even if I disagree with their interpretation. This world is nuanced and while some issues are black and white, there still is a tremendous amount of gray we have to navigate.

Thirdly, I would ask you to honor your agreement that you signed stating that you wouldn't insult or defame other posters. As the mods seem to be absent from this particular thread I am forced to implement my own rules here: If you continue to personally insult me than I am going to stop responding to any thing you have to offer. I have been very forthright in my answers to your baiting questions, let's be honest here, but if I feel you aren't acting in good faith going forward then I am writing you off.

Please check your sources. You keep making statements which are not true, which is why people are calling you on it.
You state that she "benefited" by claiming minority status. Where is your evidence? That has been disproved, if you actually took the time to read about it and see what people say, who were actually involved in her tenure decision. Unless you are mantaining everyone is lying about it (kind of like Obama's birth certificate)?

Trump is a racist about this situation, because Elizabeth Warren repeated family lore that she did NOT personally benefit from, other than say a person with Irish heritage benefits from it during St. Patricks day. What does Trump do: whenever he refers to her he does not refer to her with her given name, but as "Pocohantas". He has brought up her heritage many more times than she has (other than to defend herself). Her many merits are her own, she did not use it to get financial aid, it played no factor in her Harvard tenurship, she has not applied for tribal status. Maybe you need to ask yourself why her background bothers you and Trump so much. I don't see Trump hassling people who say they are part German, or Scottish, or whatever, even if that heritage goes far back.

When Trump asked her to PROVE she was Native American blood, even the way he did it was insulting and racist. He said  ..."I will give you a million dollars, paid for by Trump, to your favorite charity, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian."  Let me repeat that: "Shows that you're an Indian." First of all she never claimed she was 100% native American heritage, so he is asking her to prove something she has never claimed. Secondly, he said "Indian" which is a racial slur. 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elizabeth-warren-wealthy-native-american/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-warren-million-offer-dna/
« Last Edit: November 23, 2018, 10:37:53 AM by partgypsy »

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 118
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5024 on: November 23, 2018, 10:36:27 AM »
I'm pretty sure Obama originated the list of countries of the "Muslim" ban. Now I don't know what prompted him to list these countries as potential terrorist threats but I don't have a problem with Trump implementing a temporary ban until the issue is straightened out.


The law passed during the Obama Administration heightened vetting (i.e., required an in-person interview) for anyone who had visited those seven countries. Trump's executive orders outright banned entry for nationals from those countries but was otherwise silent on other persons who had visited them (which seems like a massive oversight if there was indeed a national security issue necessitating the orders).

It wouldn't bother me to have a ban on all immigration until we collectively address our immigration laws, which like all laws need to be updated and addressed for current conditions.

In your mind, how might this work? I'm an American citizen who met his wife while she was in New York on a study-based exchange visitor program visa. Her green card application is expected to kick around in the system for another 18 months. Does your ban apply to green card holders? Pending green card applicants? Those who are already here on a valid visa? Are we to drop her studies and my legal practice and start a new life in another country "until we collectively address our immigration laws?"

My point is that as a nation we need to come to a consensus of how we would like to shape our country for the future, and immigration is going to play a large role in that make-up. Our defacto response seems to be allowing unchecked illegal immigration which is forcing us to conform to their illegal platform. It's the tail wagging the dog. We are a sovereign nation that must control who is allowed into our nation which shouldn't be that controversial on its face.

I am not an expert on immigration policy and I don't have all of the answers. I am aware this is a contentious issue that will be messy in finding solutions, but the effect of ignoring some hard decisions will again be that forces outside the United States will decide the issue for us. That is not a good position to be in and one we should avoid.

I threw out the suggestion of a moratorium for a year as an opportunity to start this process. Stop the illegal immigration as best as possible, stop all applications for new entries, expedite current enrollees such as your fiancé. Begin the overhaul of our immigration policies. Simple, right? ;)

As a practical matter, I understand there would be huge complications and frankly with as many people that believe Trump is evil, I don't see him accomplishing much. Also, he was unable to fund the wall when he had both the House and Senate and now that the House has flipped he's dead in the water.


partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2853
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5025 on: November 23, 2018, 10:45:59 AM »
I'm pretty sure Obama originated the list of countries of the "Muslim" ban. Now I don't know what prompted him to list these countries as potential terrorist threats but I don't have a problem with Trump implementing a temporary ban until the issue is straightened out.


The law passed during the Obama Administration heightened vetting (i.e., required an in-person interview) for anyone who had visited those seven countries. Trump's executive orders outright banned entry for nationals from those countries but was otherwise silent on other persons who had visited them (which seems like a massive oversight if there was indeed a national security issue necessitating the orders).

It wouldn't bother me to have a ban on all immigration until we collectively address our immigration laws, which like all laws need to be updated and addressed for current conditions.

In your mind, how might this work? I'm an American citizen who met his wife while she was in New York on a study-based exchange visitor program visa. Her green card application is expected to kick around in the system for another 18 months. Does your ban apply to green card holders? Pending green card applicants? Those who are already here on a valid visa? Are we to drop her studies and my legal practice and start a new life in another country "until we collectively address our immigration laws?"

My point is that as a nation we need to come to a consensus of how we would like to shape our country for the future, and immigration is going to play a large role in that make-up. Our defacto response seems to be allowing unchecked illegal immigration which is forcing us to conform to their illegal platform. It's the tail wagging the dog. We are a sovereign nation that must control who is allowed into our nation which shouldn't be that controversial on its face.

I am not an expert on immigration policy and I don't have all of the answers. I am aware this is a contentious issue that will be messy in finding solutions, but the effect of ignoring some hard decisions will again be that forces outside the United States will decide the issue for us. That is not a good position to be in and one we should avoid.

I threw out the suggestion of a moratorium for a year as an opportunity to start this process. Stop the illegal immigration as best as possible, stop all applications for new entries, expedite current enrollees such as your fiancé. Begin the overhaul of our immigration policies. Simple, right? ;)

As a practical matter, I understand there would be huge complications and frankly with as many people that believe Trump is evil, I don't see him accomplishing much. Also, he was unable to fund the wall when he had both the House and Senate and now that the House has flipped he's dead in the water.

The total amount of immigration, and also amount of illegal immigration is less now than in many other times of our country's history. Trump's hysteria on this topic is not reflected in reality. But it is impacting real people and their families and communities. Maybe if Trump is serious about it, he can actually ask and listen to the people who are y closest to the situation, what resources THEY would like. I'll give you a hint, it aint a big frickin wall. But to tell the truth I think his mentality can only hold the concept like a "big wall" and is unable to grasp the nuance of anything that will actually be effective and policy-based.  Kind of like how we spent 200 million on trying to prevent two thousand mostly woman and children migrants traveling to our border. Do you think that was a good use of our tax monies in implementing a coherent immigrant policy? I certainly don't think so. Trump as a person, and as a president, seems unable to listen to anyone but himself. He gets rid of people who are actually informed or experts in the area, or people dealing with the particular situation, and replaces them with cronies who will echo his own views. So no, I don't have much hope that he can be an effective leader, either in immigration, or any other area. Heck, he brought Kanye in to discuss policy topics...
« Last Edit: November 23, 2018, 10:51:36 AM by partgypsy »

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 118
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5026 on: November 23, 2018, 10:52:18 AM »
Many of your examples given for overt racism don't hold water with me and I really don't feel like itemizing each one but let's address one of the easy ones. Calling Elizabeth Warren Pocohantas is not racist, it's actually quite funny because he is calling out a very liberal Democrat on the hypocrisy of appropriating another's culture for gain, something she should own up to. Native Americans should be angry with her, not Trump.

If you don't believe that calling a woman with proven Native American ancestry "Pocahontas" is racist, (and in fact think it's funny) then we don't really need to keep discussing this.  Contrary to your claims, you are racist.  Your support of Trump would therefore fit the stereotype you're saying is unfair.

Goodness gracious, bless your heart. Is this your gotcha moment where once and for all you've proven me a racist?

Let's recap, Elizabeth Warren, who by her own admission and test results  (and wow did she play into the hands of Trump on that one) is at best 4 to 5 generations removed from any native american ancestry. We are talking hundreds of years of separation between an ancestor and her current life. She has absolutely no connection whatsoever to Native Americans. None. There is a reason tribes within the United States require a certain amount of Indian blood for them to consider somebody a member of their tribe. I noticed you have failed to mention that certain tribes, namely the Cherokee, have asked her to stop insulting them with her dubious claims of affiliation. Is Warren a racist?

But that didn't stop her from claiming minority status for personal gain. It's documented, it's there. When Trump calls her Pocohantus he is highlighting her poor behavior, especially coming from a liberal championing minority causes. What makes it funny is that instead of owning up to her poor behavior and hypocrisy, she continues to double-down (muh high cheek bones), and much like you wants to paint Trump as the bad guy here pulling the racism card. Is Trump insensitive? Yes, and he should out of respect stop using Pocohantus as a punchline but the onus here is on Warren. She has the power to put this issue to bed with a simple apology.

A few days ago I opened my first post with an admonishment. Not every Trump supporter is an idiot and not every Trump supporter is a racist. That should be self-evident but here I am having to argue this issue again.

Firstly, people like you have cheapened the meaning of the word racist. It has no gravitas, and has become a running meme, a running joke through its incredible misuse. You guys have taken the power away from it by applying it to anybody that doesn't march in lock-step with your very broad and many times changing definition. You should consider stopping that because this behavior will ultimately cause you more harm than someone like me, and intolerance is intolerance, and people remember which side treated them like shit. Now before you start typing a response to all of the abuses the other side is guilty of, I want you to stop and consider what I have just written. Painting broad swaths of people with cheap labels has consequences. And yes, both sides are guilty of this but you are the one that called me racist. ;)

Secondly, this habit of attributing motive to every perceived slight has got to stop. You don't have the power to read minds or intimately know why a person does what they do. Nor do I, but in the absence of mind-reading we make calculated guesses based on words and/or actions. What is interesting is that two people can witness the same event and can come up with two wildly different explanations of what just occurred. As mature adults we must account for this and take this into consideration. Before I start calling people names I have the responsibility to consider why someone would believe what they believe, even if I disagree with their interpretation. This world is nuanced and while some issues are black and white, there still is a tremendous amount of gray we have to navigate.

Thirdly, I would ask you to honor your agreement that you signed stating that you wouldn't insult or defame other posters. As the mods seem to be absent from this particular thread I am forced to implement my own rules here: If you continue to personally insult me than I am going to stop responding to any thing you have to offer. I have been very forthright in my answers to your baiting questions, let's be honest here, but if I feel you aren't acting in good faith going forward then I am writing you off.

If you would like to provide the documentation proving that Warren benefited from claiming a minority status we can talk about that.  I assume that it's hanging out somewhere with Obama's real birth certificate, and the evidence that the central park 5 should have been convicted.

But that's all really beside the point.  The way that Trump has repeatedly used the term 'Pocahontas' is a racial slur.  That's not my opinion, it's the opinion of the National Congress for American Indians.  (https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/ncai-condemns-president-trump-s-derogatory-use-of-pocahontas--KArFACFlku_jlYnYVYNHg/)  Trump has continued to use the slur after being asked not to.

Why exactly do you believe that you are a better judge of what is racist towards Native people than the National Congress for American Indians?

There's also the fact that Trump is explicitly calling her 'Pocahontas' because he believes that the name itself is an insult:

“She is one of the least productive senators in the United States Senate. We call her ‘Pocahontas’ for a reason.” - https://www.facebook.com/cnbc/posts/she-is-one-of-the-least-productive-senators-in-the-united-states-senate-we-call-/10154439052924369/

 Is Trump insensitive? Yes, and he should out of respect stop using Pocohantus as a punchline


Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 118
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5027 on: November 23, 2018, 10:55:34 AM »
Goodness gracious, bless your heart. Is this your gotcha moment where once and for all you've proven me a racist?

Let's recap, Elizabeth Warren, who by her own admission and test results  (and wow did she play into the hands of Trump on that one) is at best 4 to 5 generations removed from any native american ancestry. We are talking hundreds of years of separation between an ancestor and her current life. She has absolutely no connection whatsoever to Native Americans. None. There is a reason tribes within the United States require a certain amount of Indian blood for them to consider somebody a member of their tribe. I noticed you have failed to mention that certain tribes, namely the Cherokee, have asked her to stop insulting them with her dubious claims of affiliation. Is Warren a racist?

But that didn't stop her from claiming minority status for personal gain. It's documented, it's there. When Trump calls her Pocohantus he is highlighting her poor behavior, especially coming from a liberal championing minority causes. What makes it funny is that instead of owning up to her poor behavior and hypocrisy, she continues to double-down (muh high cheek bones), and much like you wants to paint Trump as the bad guy here pulling the racism card. Is Trump insensitive? Yes, and he should out of respect stop using Pocohantus as a punchline but the onus here is on Warren. She has the power to put this issue to bed with a simple apology.

A few days ago I opened my first post with an admonishment. Not every Trump supporter is an idiot and not every Trump supporter is a racist. That should be self-evident but here I am having to argue this issue again.

Firstly, people like you have cheapened the meaning of the word racist. It has no gravitas, and has become a running meme, a running joke through its incredible misuse. You guys have taken the power away from it by applying it to anybody that doesn't march in lock-step with your very broad and many times changing definition. You should consider stopping that because this behavior will ultimately cause you more harm than someone like me, and intolerance is intolerance, and people remember which side treated them like shit. Now before you start typing a response to all of the abuses the other side is guilty of, I want you to stop and consider what I have just written. Painting broad swaths of people with cheap labels has consequences. And yes, both sides are guilty of this but you are the one that called me racist. ;)

Secondly, this habit of attributing motive to every perceived slight has got to stop. You don't have the power to read minds or intimately know why a person does what they do. Nor do I, but in the absence of mind-reading we make calculated guesses based on words and/or actions. What is interesting is that two people can witness the same event and can come up with two wildly different explanations of what just occurred. As mature adults we must account for this and take this into consideration. Before I start calling people names I have the responsibility to consider why someone would believe what they believe, even if I disagree with their interpretation. This world is nuanced and while some issues are black and white, there still is a tremendous amount of gray we have to navigate.

Thirdly, I would ask you to honor your agreement that you signed stating that you wouldn't insult or defame other posters. As the mods seem to be absent from this particular thread I am forced to implement my own rules here: If you continue to personally insult me than I am going to stop responding to any thing you have to offer. I have been very forthright in my answers to your baiting questions, let's be honest here, but if I feel you aren't acting in good faith going forward then I am writing you off.

If you would like to provide the documentation proving that Warren benefited from claiming a minority status we can talk about that.  I assume that it's hanging out somewhere with Obama's real birth certificate, and the evidence that the central park 5 should have been convicted.

But that's all really beside the point.  The way that Trump has repeatedly used the term 'Pocahontas' is a racial slur.  That's not my opinion, it's the opinion of the National Congress for American Indians.  (https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/ncai-condemns-president-trump-s-derogatory-use-of-pocahontas--KArFACFlku_jlYnYVYNHg/)  Trump has continued to use the slur after being asked not to.

Why exactly do you believe that you are a better judge of what is racist towards Native people than the National Congress for American Indians?

Even if @Versatile could prove that she benefitted from it I'd like to know how he determined that personal gain was her motive.

Good catch. Yes, I am implying motive and I can't read her mind. I am making an educated guess. This is an example where two different people can look at the same event and come to two different conclusions.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12906
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5028 on: November 23, 2018, 10:58:21 AM »
Many of your examples given for overt racism don't hold water with me and I really don't feel like itemizing each one but let's address one of the easy ones. Calling Elizabeth Warren Pocohantas is not racist, it's actually quite funny because he is calling out a very liberal Democrat on the hypocrisy of appropriating another's culture for gain, something she should own up to. Native Americans should be angry with her, not Trump.

If you don't believe that calling a woman with proven Native American ancestry "Pocahontas" is racist, (and in fact think it's funny) then we don't really need to keep discussing this.  Contrary to your claims, you are racist.  Your support of Trump would therefore fit the stereotype you're saying is unfair.

Goodness gracious, bless your heart. Is this your gotcha moment where once and for all you've proven me a racist?

Let's recap, Elizabeth Warren, who by her own admission and test results  (and wow did she play into the hands of Trump on that one) is at best 4 to 5 generations removed from any native american ancestry. We are talking hundreds of years of separation between an ancestor and her current life. She has absolutely no connection whatsoever to Native Americans. None. There is a reason tribes within the United States require a certain amount of Indian blood for them to consider somebody a member of their tribe. I noticed you have failed to mention that certain tribes, namely the Cherokee, have asked her to stop insulting them with her dubious claims of affiliation. Is Warren a racist?

But that didn't stop her from claiming minority status for personal gain. It's documented, it's there. When Trump calls her Pocohantus he is highlighting her poor behavior, especially coming from a liberal championing minority causes. What makes it funny is that instead of owning up to her poor behavior and hypocrisy, she continues to double-down (muh high cheek bones), and much like you wants to paint Trump as the bad guy here pulling the racism card. Is Trump insensitive? Yes, and he should out of respect stop using Pocohantus as a punchline but the onus here is on Warren. She has the power to put this issue to bed with a simple apology.

A few days ago I opened my first post with an admonishment. Not every Trump supporter is an idiot and not every Trump supporter is a racist. That should be self-evident but here I am having to argue this issue again.

Firstly, people like you have cheapened the meaning of the word racist. It has no gravitas, and has become a running meme, a running joke through its incredible misuse. You guys have taken the power away from it by applying it to anybody that doesn't march in lock-step with your very broad and many times changing definition. You should consider stopping that because this behavior will ultimately cause you more harm than someone like me, and intolerance is intolerance, and people remember which side treated them like shit. Now before you start typing a response to all of the abuses the other side is guilty of, I want you to stop and consider what I have just written. Painting broad swaths of people with cheap labels has consequences. And yes, both sides are guilty of this but you are the one that called me racist. ;)

Secondly, this habit of attributing motive to every perceived slight has got to stop. You don't have the power to read minds or intimately know why a person does what they do. Nor do I, but in the absence of mind-reading we make calculated guesses based on words and/or actions. What is interesting is that two people can witness the same event and can come up with two wildly different explanations of what just occurred. As mature adults we must account for this and take this into consideration. Before I start calling people names I have the responsibility to consider why someone would believe what they believe, even if I disagree with their interpretation. This world is nuanced and while some issues are black and white, there still is a tremendous amount of gray we have to navigate.

Thirdly, I would ask you to honor your agreement that you signed stating that you wouldn't insult or defame other posters. As the mods seem to be absent from this particular thread I am forced to implement my own rules here: If you continue to personally insult me than I am going to stop responding to any thing you have to offer. I have been very forthright in my answers to your baiting questions, let's be honest here, but if I feel you aren't acting in good faith going forward then I am writing you off.

If you would like to provide the documentation proving that Warren benefited from claiming a minority status we can talk about that.  I assume that it's hanging out somewhere with Obama's real birth certificate, and the evidence that the central park 5 should have been convicted.

But that's all really beside the point.  The way that Trump has repeatedly used the term 'Pocahontas' is a racial slur.  That's not my opinion, it's the opinion of the National Congress for American Indians.  (https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/ncai-condemns-president-trump-s-derogatory-use-of-pocahontas--KArFACFlku_jlYnYVYNHg/)  Trump has continued to use the slur after being asked not to.

Why exactly do you believe that you are a better judge of what is racist towards Native people than the National Congress for American Indians?

There's also the fact that Trump is explicitly calling her 'Pocahontas' because he believes that the name itself is an insult:

“She is one of the least productive senators in the United States Senate. We call her ‘Pocahontas’ for a reason.” - https://www.facebook.com/cnbc/posts/she-is-one-of-the-least-productive-senators-in-the-united-states-senate-we-call-/10154439052924369/

 Is Trump insensitive? Yes, and he should out of respect stop using Pocohantus as a punchline

It's not a matter of insensitivity.  It's an identified racial slur.  Repeatedly using it is therefore racist.  When you say things like "Calling Elizabeth Warren Pocohantas is not racist, it's actually quite funny" you are condoning Trump's racist action.  Condoning racist action is also a racist action.

This is why I pointed out that you are racist.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5029 on: November 23, 2018, 11:04:33 AM »
Many of your examples given for overt racism don't hold water with me and I really don't feel like itemizing each one but let's address one of the easy ones. Calling Elizabeth Warren Pocohantas is not racist, it's actually quite funny because he is calling out a very liberal Democrat on the hypocrisy of appropriating another's culture for gain, something she should own up to. Native Americans should be angry with her, not Trump.

If you don't believe that calling a woman with proven Native American ancestry "Pocahontas" is racist, (and in fact think it's funny) then we don't really need to keep discussing this.  Contrary to your claims, you are racist.  Your support of Trump would therefore fit the stereotype you're saying is unfair.

Goodness gracious, bless your heart. Is this your gotcha moment where once and for all you've proven me a racist?

Let's recap, Elizabeth Warren, who by her own admission and test results  (and wow did she play into the hands of Trump on that one) is at best 4 to 5 generations removed from any native american ancestry. We are talking hundreds of years of separation between an ancestor and her current life. She has absolutely no connection whatsoever to Native Americans. None. There is a reason tribes within the United States require a certain amount of Indian blood for them to consider somebody a member of their tribe. I noticed you have failed to mention that certain tribes, namely the Cherokee, have asked her to stop insulting them with her dubious claims of affiliation. Is Warren a racist?

But that didn't stop her from claiming minority status for personal gain. It's documented, it's there. When Trump calls her Pocohantus he is highlighting her poor behavior, especially coming from a liberal championing minority causes. What makes it funny is that instead of owning up to her poor behavior and hypocrisy, she continues to double-down (muh high cheek bones), and much like you wants to paint Trump as the bad guy here pulling the racism card. Is Trump insensitive? Yes, and he should out of respect stop using Pocohantus as a punchline but the onus here is on Warren. She has the power to put this issue to bed with a simple apology.

A few days ago I opened my first post with an admonishment. Not every Trump supporter is an idiot and not every Trump supporter is a racist. That should be self-evident but here I am having to argue this issue again.

Firstly, people like you have cheapened the meaning of the word racist. It has no gravitas, and has become a running meme, a running joke through its incredible misuse. You guys have taken the power away from it by applying it to anybody that doesn't march in lock-step with your very broad and many times changing definition. You should consider stopping that because this behavior will ultimately cause you more harm than someone like me, and intolerance is intolerance, and people remember which side treated them like shit. Now before you start typing a response to all of the abuses the other side is guilty of, I want you to stop and consider what I have just written. Painting broad swaths of people with cheap labels has consequences. And yes, both sides are guilty of this but you are the one that called me racist. ;)

Secondly, this habit of attributing motive to every perceived slight has got to stop. You don't have the power to read minds or intimately know why a person does what they do. Nor do I, but in the absence of mind-reading we make calculated guesses based on words and/or actions. What is interesting is that two people can witness the same event and can come up with two wildly different explanations of what just occurred. As mature adults we must account for this and take this into consideration. Before I start calling people names I have the responsibility to consider why someone would believe what they believe, even if I disagree with their interpretation. This world is nuanced and while some issues are black and white, there still is a tremendous amount of gray we have to navigate.

Thirdly, I would ask you to honor your agreement that you signed stating that you wouldn't insult or defame other posters. As the mods seem to be absent from this particular thread I am forced to implement my own rules here: If you continue to personally insult me than I am going to stop responding to any thing you have to offer. I have been very forthright in my answers to your baiting questions, let's be honest here, but if I feel you aren't acting in good faith going forward then I am writing you off.

If you would like to provide the documentation proving that Warren benefited from claiming a minority status we can talk about that.  I assume that it's hanging out somewhere with Obama's real birth certificate, and the evidence that the central park 5 should have been convicted.

But that's all really beside the point.  The way that Trump has repeatedly used the term 'Pocahontas' is a racial slur.  That's not my opinion, it's the opinion of the National Congress for American Indians.  (https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/ncai-condemns-president-trump-s-derogatory-use-of-pocahontas--KArFACFlku_jlYnYVYNHg/)  Trump has continued to use the slur after being asked not to.

Why exactly do you believe that you are a better judge of what is racist towards Native people than the National Congress for American Indians?

There's also the fact that Trump is explicitly calling her 'Pocahontas' because he believes that the name itself is an insult:

“She is one of the least productive senators in the United States Senate. We call her ‘Pocahontas’ for a reason.” - https://www.facebook.com/cnbc/posts/she-is-one-of-the-least-productive-senators-in-the-united-states-senate-we-call-/10154439052924369/

 Is Trump insensitive? Yes, and he should out of respect stop using Pocohantus as a punchline

That's some hardcore cognitive dissonance you got going on there.

Johnez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Location: Southern California
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5030 on: November 23, 2018, 11:07:11 AM »
"It's documented, it's there"

It is not documented, it is not there. Its FAKE news. Trump picked on Warren and built a straw man to beat her up with and repeated a lie until it became a truth. Warren got where she was without marking Indian anywhere. Nobody hired her for being an Indian.

Trump is a genius in this way. He gets people to support him based on "facts." Facts that are total bullshit. And then handwaves the actual facts as if they don't matter cos "haha you're making a big fuss over nothing, I didn't mean it like that." It's classic school yard bully tactics. Total manipulation. It's worse than gaslighting because it gets people otherwise disgusted with his views on board. The ones that don't pay complete attention anyway. And the ones who pay attention are his enemies. Ever notice that? Why? Obama never called the press an enemy. The Limbaughs and Becks weren't worth worrying about. Show the birth certificate, lol. I bet Obama laughed at that. Why is it this big tough guy who's even tougher than the hero soldiers captured in Vietnam feel threatened? It's because he has shit to hide. He needs to delegitimize the press so he can cry "Not fair, they've always been after me, waaahhhh."

Pathetic.

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 118
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5031 on: November 23, 2018, 11:25:19 AM »
Many of your examples given for overt racism don't hold water with me and I really don't feel like itemizing each one but let's address one of the easy ones. Calling Elizabeth Warren Pocohantas is not racist, it's actually quite funny because he is calling out a very liberal Democrat on the hypocrisy of appropriating another's culture for gain, something she should own up to. Native Americans should be angry with her, not Trump.

If you don't believe that calling a woman with proven Native American ancestry "Pocahontas" is racist, (and in fact think it's funny) then we don't really need to keep discussing this.  Contrary to your claims, you are racist.  Your support of Trump would therefore fit the stereotype you're saying is unfair.

Goodness gracious, bless your heart. Is this your gotcha moment where once and for all you've proven me a racist?

Let's recap, Elizabeth Warren, who by her own admission and test results  (and wow did she play into the hands of Trump on that one) is at best 4 to 5 generations removed from any native american ancestry. We are talking hundreds of years of separation between an ancestor and her current life. She has absolutely no connection whatsoever to Native Americans. None. There is a reason tribes within the United States require a certain amount of Indian blood for them to consider somebody a member of their tribe. I noticed you have failed to mention that certain tribes, namely the Cherokee, have asked her to stop insulting them with her dubious claims of affiliation. Is Warren a racist?

But that didn't stop her from claiming minority status for personal gain. It's documented, it's there. When Trump calls her Pocohantus he is highlighting her poor behavior, especially coming from a liberal championing minority causes. What makes it funny is that instead of owning up to her poor behavior and hypocrisy, she continues to double-down (muh high cheek bones), and much like you wants to paint Trump as the bad guy here pulling the racism card. Is Trump insensitive? Yes, and he should out of respect stop using Pocohantus as a punchline but the onus here is on Warren. She has the power to put this issue to bed with a simple apology.

A few days ago I opened my first post with an admonishment. Not every Trump supporter is an idiot and not every Trump supporter is a racist. That should be self-evident but here I am having to argue this issue again.

Firstly, people like you have cheapened the meaning of the word racist. It has no gravitas, and has become a running meme, a running joke through its incredible misuse. You guys have taken the power away from it by applying it to anybody that doesn't march in lock-step with your very broad and many times changing definition. You should consider stopping that because this behavior will ultimately cause you more harm than someone like me, and intolerance is intolerance, and people remember which side treated them like shit. Now before you start typing a response to all of the abuses the other side is guilty of, I want you to stop and consider what I have just written. Painting broad swaths of people with cheap labels has consequences. And yes, both sides are guilty of this but you are the one that called me racist. ;)

Secondly, this habit of attributing motive to every perceived slight has got to stop. You don't have the power to read minds or intimately know why a person does what they do. Nor do I, but in the absence of mind-reading we make calculated guesses based on words and/or actions. What is interesting is that two people can witness the same event and can come up with two wildly different explanations of what just occurred. As mature adults we must account for this and take this into consideration. Before I start calling people names I have the responsibility to consider why someone would believe what they believe, even if I disagree with their interpretation. This world is nuanced and while some issues are black and white, there still is a tremendous amount of gray we have to navigate.

Thirdly, I would ask you to honor your agreement that you signed stating that you wouldn't insult or defame other posters. As the mods seem to be absent from this particular thread I am forced to implement my own rules here: If you continue to personally insult me than I am going to stop responding to any thing you have to offer. I have been very forthright in my answers to your baiting questions, let's be honest here, but if I feel you aren't acting in good faith going forward then I am writing you off.

Please check your sources. You keep making statements which are not true, which is why people are calling you on it.
You state that she "benefited" by claiming minority status. Where is your evidence? That has been disproved, if you actually took the time to read about it and see what people say, who were actually involved in her tenure decision. Unless you are mantaining everyone is lying about it (kind of like Obama's birth certificate)?

Trump is a racist about this situation, because Elizabeth Warren repeated family lore that she did NOT personally benefit from, other than say a person with Irish heritage benefits from it during St. Patricks day. What does Trump do: whenever he refers to her he does not refer to her with her given name, but as "Pocohantas". He has brought up her heritage many more times than she has (other than to defend herself). Her many merits are her own, she did not use it to get financial aid, it played no factor in her Harvard tenurship, she has not applied for tribal status. Maybe you need to ask yourself why her background bothers you and Trump so much. I don't see Trump hassling people who say they are part German, or Scottish, or whatever, even if that heritage goes far back.

When Trump asked her to PROVE she was Native American blood, even the way he did it was insulting and racist. He said  ..."I will give you a million dollars, paid for by Trump, to your favorite charity, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian."  Let me repeat that: "Shows that you're an Indian." First of all she never claimed she was 100% native American heritage, so he is asking her to prove something she has never claimed. Secondly, he said "Indian" which is a racial slur. 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elizabeth-warren-wealthy-native-american/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-warren-million-offer-dna/

For the record, Snopes is not a credible source, but we'll go with what you've presented. Let me state that I don't care what her house is worth or even if she has Native American blood. It's irrelevant. Please don't imply it bothers me one way or the other as it does not.

What is relevant is that she checked that minority status without proof other than folklore at the time. You can argue that it didn't benefit her but you have no proof that it wasn't a consideration in her hiring. By all indications at the time, it would have been a net benefit to have minority status for potential candidates, especially in a heavily dominated white institution. Logic would tell you that was a motivation. I can't read her mind and neither can you, but I am going with what is most plausible.

Lews Therin

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2532
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Ottawa
  • Used to be Canadian Ben
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5032 on: November 23, 2018, 11:33:21 AM »

For the record, Snopes is not a credible source, but we'll go with what you've presented.

Snopes is one the most highly regarded fact checking sites....

Versatiles. Stop beating a dead horse, nothing will change your opinion on her. On the other hand, would you like to speculate on the future of Trump's presidency? Name things you'd like to see Trump do, or things you believe will happen.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12906
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5033 on: November 23, 2018, 11:34:27 AM »
Many of your examples given for overt racism don't hold water with me and I really don't feel like itemizing each one but let's address one of the easy ones. Calling Elizabeth Warren Pocohantas is not racist, it's actually quite funny because he is calling out a very liberal Democrat on the hypocrisy of appropriating another's culture for gain, something she should own up to. Native Americans should be angry with her, not Trump.

If you don't believe that calling a woman with proven Native American ancestry "Pocahontas" is racist, (and in fact think it's funny) then we don't really need to keep discussing this.  Contrary to your claims, you are racist.  Your support of Trump would therefore fit the stereotype you're saying is unfair.

Goodness gracious, bless your heart. Is this your gotcha moment where once and for all you've proven me a racist?

Let's recap, Elizabeth Warren, who by her own admission and test results  (and wow did she play into the hands of Trump on that one) is at best 4 to 5 generations removed from any native american ancestry. We are talking hundreds of years of separation between an ancestor and her current life. She has absolutely no connection whatsoever to Native Americans. None. There is a reason tribes within the United States require a certain amount of Indian blood for them to consider somebody a member of their tribe. I noticed you have failed to mention that certain tribes, namely the Cherokee, have asked her to stop insulting them with her dubious claims of affiliation. Is Warren a racist?

But that didn't stop her from claiming minority status for personal gain. It's documented, it's there. When Trump calls her Pocohantus he is highlighting her poor behavior, especially coming from a liberal championing minority causes. What makes it funny is that instead of owning up to her poor behavior and hypocrisy, she continues to double-down (muh high cheek bones), and much like you wants to paint Trump as the bad guy here pulling the racism card. Is Trump insensitive? Yes, and he should out of respect stop using Pocohantus as a punchline but the onus here is on Warren. She has the power to put this issue to bed with a simple apology.

A few days ago I opened my first post with an admonishment. Not every Trump supporter is an idiot and not every Trump supporter is a racist. That should be self-evident but here I am having to argue this issue again.

Firstly, people like you have cheapened the meaning of the word racist. It has no gravitas, and has become a running meme, a running joke through its incredible misuse. You guys have taken the power away from it by applying it to anybody that doesn't march in lock-step with your very broad and many times changing definition. You should consider stopping that because this behavior will ultimately cause you more harm than someone like me, and intolerance is intolerance, and people remember which side treated them like shit. Now before you start typing a response to all of the abuses the other side is guilty of, I want you to stop and consider what I have just written. Painting broad swaths of people with cheap labels has consequences. And yes, both sides are guilty of this but you are the one that called me racist. ;)

Secondly, this habit of attributing motive to every perceived slight has got to stop. You don't have the power to read minds or intimately know why a person does what they do. Nor do I, but in the absence of mind-reading we make calculated guesses based on words and/or actions. What is interesting is that two people can witness the same event and can come up with two wildly different explanations of what just occurred. As mature adults we must account for this and take this into consideration. Before I start calling people names I have the responsibility to consider why someone would believe what they believe, even if I disagree with their interpretation. This world is nuanced and while some issues are black and white, there still is a tremendous amount of gray we have to navigate.

Thirdly, I would ask you to honor your agreement that you signed stating that you wouldn't insult or defame other posters. As the mods seem to be absent from this particular thread I am forced to implement my own rules here: If you continue to personally insult me than I am going to stop responding to any thing you have to offer. I have been very forthright in my answers to your baiting questions, let's be honest here, but if I feel you aren't acting in good faith going forward then I am writing you off.

Please check your sources. You keep making statements which are not true, which is why people are calling you on it.
You state that she "benefited" by claiming minority status. Where is your evidence? That has been disproved, if you actually took the time to read about it and see what people say, who were actually involved in her tenure decision. Unless you are mantaining everyone is lying about it (kind of like Obama's birth certificate)?

Trump is a racist about this situation, because Elizabeth Warren repeated family lore that she did NOT personally benefit from, other than say a person with Irish heritage benefits from it during St. Patricks day. What does Trump do: whenever he refers to her he does not refer to her with her given name, but as "Pocohantas". He has brought up her heritage many more times than she has (other than to defend herself). Her many merits are her own, she did not use it to get financial aid, it played no factor in her Harvard tenurship, she has not applied for tribal status. Maybe you need to ask yourself why her background bothers you and Trump so much. I don't see Trump hassling people who say they are part German, or Scottish, or whatever, even if that heritage goes far back.

When Trump asked her to PROVE she was Native American blood, even the way he did it was insulting and racist. He said  ..."I will give you a million dollars, paid for by Trump, to your favorite charity, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian."  Let me repeat that: "Shows that you're an Indian." First of all she never claimed she was 100% native American heritage, so he is asking her to prove something she has never claimed. Secondly, he said "Indian" which is a racial slur. 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elizabeth-warren-wealthy-native-american/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-warren-million-offer-dna/

For the record, Snopes is not a credible source, but we'll go with what you've presented. Let me state that I don't care what her house is worth or even if she has Native American blood. It's irrelevant. Please don't imply it bothers me one way or the other as it does not.

What is relevant is that she checked that minority status without proof other than folklore at the time. You can argue that it didn't benefit her but you have no proof that it wasn't a consideration in her hiring. By all indications at the time, it would have been a net benefit to have minority status for potential candidates, especially in a heavily dominated white institution. Logic would tell you that was a motivation. I can't read her mind and neither can you, but I am going with what is most plausible.

. . . all of which is completely unimportant in our discussion of your support of use of a racial slur.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2087
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5034 on: November 23, 2018, 11:47:02 AM »
Logic would tell you that was a motivation. I can't read her mind and neither can you, but I am going with what is most plausible.

Quote above snipped for thread-mercy.

Logic would also say that Trump realizes that arguing over these types of things cheapens everyone involved and absolutely sucks the air out of the room. It prevents actual discussions of policy, on which Trump is absurdly weak even after 2 years on the job. He is playing tic tac toe while everyone else on the world stage is trying to play chess.

I also think it is worth addressing your concept that racism is being cheapened because it is being used to describe behaviors that are not overt. I'm not sure where the line between overt and not-overt is. My take is that it is dismissed because people who are not adversely affected by it don't care enough to actually consider what is being called racism.

Data supporting institutional racism against african americans is pretty conclusive. BLM arose as a recent organized response to this. Yes, the racism is less overt than attacking people with dogs, or the treatment of blacks on a bridge in Selma, or separate water fountains, but there the data is and it is clear that institutional racism still exists. The response to BLM from the right has been the dismissive, "well of course, all llives matter." Or that they are being divisive for pointing it out. The response has been victim blaming.
https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/08/09/black-lives-matter-is-not-a-terrorist-organisation

Trump has acted in ways that fuel racist fires. He uses wording that emboldens the overt racists. He uses "others" such as "liberal judges" (ask John Roberts about that one),  or non-white judges who must therefore be biased if a case is ruled against him, or anyone from a "shithole country" as a boodgeyman to rile up his base.

You speak of echo chambers? Try listening to Fox News, whose talking heads actually show up on stage with Trump at campaign events. How is that not an echo chamber and biased as he continues to hammer on the centrist NY Times?

So while you may not be an overt racist, and you probably actually treat people pretty well, your vote enables a pretty racist president. Your responses above suggest that you either don't understand or do not care enough about these institutional issues to have it change your vote and your continued support. Yeah, people who are active racists, and people with reasonable IQs have voted for Trump. The election data are pretty clear on that. But, it is also clear that a lot of those people are the ones in positions of privilege who are not on the receiving end of Trump's "other" categories, and just don't care enough about the "others" to have it impact their support.

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 118
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5035 on: November 23, 2018, 11:51:49 AM »
Many of your examples given for overt racism don't hold water with me and I really don't feel like itemizing each one but let's address one of the easy ones. Calling Elizabeth Warren Pocohantas is not racist, it's actually quite funny because he is calling out a very liberal Democrat on the hypocrisy of appropriating another's culture for gain, something she should own up to. Native Americans should be angry with her, not Trump.

If you don't believe that calling a woman with proven Native American ancestry "Pocahontas" is racist, (and in fact think it's funny) then we don't really need to keep discussing this.  Contrary to your claims, you are racist.  Your support of Trump would therefore fit the stereotype you're saying is unfair.

Goodness gracious, bless your heart. Is this your gotcha moment where once and for all you've proven me a racist?

Let's recap, Elizabeth Warren, who by her own admission and test results  (and wow did she play into the hands of Trump on that one) is at best 4 to 5 generations removed from any native american ancestry. We are talking hundreds of years of separation between an ancestor and her current life. She has absolutely no connection whatsoever to Native Americans. None. There is a reason tribes within the United States require a certain amount of Indian blood for them to consider somebody a member of their tribe. I noticed you have failed to mention that certain tribes, namely the Cherokee, have asked her to stop insulting them with her dubious claims of affiliation. Is Warren a racist?

But that didn't stop her from claiming minority status for personal gain. It's documented, it's there. When Trump calls her Pocohantus he is highlighting her poor behavior, especially coming from a liberal championing minority causes. What makes it funny is that instead of owning up to her poor behavior and hypocrisy, she continues to double-down (muh high cheek bones), and much like you wants to paint Trump as the bad guy here pulling the racism card. Is Trump insensitive? Yes, and he should out of respect stop using Pocohantus as a punchline but the onus here is on Warren. She has the power to put this issue to bed with a simple apology.

A few days ago I opened my first post with an admonishment. Not every Trump supporter is an idiot and not every Trump supporter is a racist. That should be self-evident but here I am having to argue this issue again.

Firstly, people like you have cheapened the meaning of the word racist. It has no gravitas, and has become a running meme, a running joke through its incredible misuse. You guys have taken the power away from it by applying it to anybody that doesn't march in lock-step with your very broad and many times changing definition. You should consider stopping that because this behavior will ultimately cause you more harm than someone like me, and intolerance is intolerance, and people remember which side treated them like shit. Now before you start typing a response to all of the abuses the other side is guilty of, I want you to stop and consider what I have just written. Painting broad swaths of people with cheap labels has consequences. And yes, both sides are guilty of this but you are the one that called me racist. ;)

Secondly, this habit of attributing motive to every perceived slight has got to stop. You don't have the power to read minds or intimately know why a person does what they do. Nor do I, but in the absence of mind-reading we make calculated guesses based on words and/or actions. What is interesting is that two people can witness the same event and can come up with two wildly different explanations of what just occurred. As mature adults we must account for this and take this into consideration. Before I start calling people names I have the responsibility to consider why someone would believe what they believe, even if I disagree with their interpretation. This world is nuanced and while some issues are black and white, there still is a tremendous amount of gray we have to navigate.

Thirdly, I would ask you to honor your agreement that you signed stating that you wouldn't insult or defame other posters. As the mods seem to be absent from this particular thread I am forced to implement my own rules here: If you continue to personally insult me than I am going to stop responding to any thing you have to offer. I have been very forthright in my answers to your baiting questions, let's be honest here, but if I feel you aren't acting in good faith going forward then I am writing you off.

If you would like to provide the documentation proving that Warren benefited from claiming a minority status we can talk about that.  I assume that it's hanging out somewhere with Obama's real birth certificate, and the evidence that the central park 5 should have been convicted.

But that's all really beside the point.  The way that Trump has repeatedly used the term 'Pocahontas' is a racial slur.  That's not my opinion, it's the opinion of the National Congress for American Indians.  (https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/ncai-condemns-president-trump-s-derogatory-use-of-pocahontas--KArFACFlku_jlYnYVYNHg/)  Trump has continued to use the slur after being asked not to.

Why exactly do you believe that you are a better judge of what is racist towards Native people than the National Congress for American Indians?

There's also the fact that Trump is explicitly calling her 'Pocahontas' because he believes that the name itself is an insult:

“She is one of the least productive senators in the United States Senate. We call her ‘Pocahontas’ for a reason.” - https://www.facebook.com/cnbc/posts/she-is-one-of-the-least-productive-senators-in-the-united-states-senate-we-call-/10154439052924369/

 Is Trump insensitive? Yes, and he should out of respect stop using Pocohantus as a punchline

It's not a matter of insensitivity.  It's an identified racial slur.  Repeatedly using it is therefore racist.  When you say things like "Calling Elizabeth Warren Pocohantas is not racist, it's actually quite funny" you are condoning Trump's racist action.  Condoning racist action is also a racist action.

This is why I pointed out that you are racist.

As you appear incapable of maintaining a basic level of decorum, I am ceasing all responses to your posts. Please re-read the attached previous responses.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12906
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5036 on: November 23, 2018, 12:04:37 PM »
Many of your examples given for overt racism don't hold water with me and I really don't feel like itemizing each one but let's address one of the easy ones. Calling Elizabeth Warren Pocohantas is not racist, it's actually quite funny because he is calling out a very liberal Democrat on the hypocrisy of appropriating another's culture for gain, something she should own up to. Native Americans should be angry with her, not Trump.

If you don't believe that calling a woman with proven Native American ancestry "Pocahontas" is racist, (and in fact think it's funny) then we don't really need to keep discussing this.  Contrary to your claims, you are racist.  Your support of Trump would therefore fit the stereotype you're saying is unfair.

Goodness gracious, bless your heart. Is this your gotcha moment where once and for all you've proven me a racist?

Let's recap, Elizabeth Warren, who by her own admission and test results  (and wow did she play into the hands of Trump on that one) is at best 4 to 5 generations removed from any native american ancestry. We are talking hundreds of years of separation between an ancestor and her current life. She has absolutely no connection whatsoever to Native Americans. None. There is a reason tribes within the United States require a certain amount of Indian blood for them to consider somebody a member of their tribe. I noticed you have failed to mention that certain tribes, namely the Cherokee, have asked her to stop insulting them with her dubious claims of affiliation. Is Warren a racist?

But that didn't stop her from claiming minority status for personal gain. It's documented, it's there. When Trump calls her Pocohantus he is highlighting her poor behavior, especially coming from a liberal championing minority causes. What makes it funny is that instead of owning up to her poor behavior and hypocrisy, she continues to double-down (muh high cheek bones), and much like you wants to paint Trump as the bad guy here pulling the racism card. Is Trump insensitive? Yes, and he should out of respect stop using Pocohantus as a punchline but the onus here is on Warren. She has the power to put this issue to bed with a simple apology.

A few days ago I opened my first post with an admonishment. Not every Trump supporter is an idiot and not every Trump supporter is a racist. That should be self-evident but here I am having to argue this issue again.

Firstly, people like you have cheapened the meaning of the word racist. It has no gravitas, and has become a running meme, a running joke through its incredible misuse. You guys have taken the power away from it by applying it to anybody that doesn't march in lock-step with your very broad and many times changing definition. You should consider stopping that because this behavior will ultimately cause you more harm than someone like me, and intolerance is intolerance, and people remember which side treated them like shit. Now before you start typing a response to all of the abuses the other side is guilty of, I want you to stop and consider what I have just written. Painting broad swaths of people with cheap labels has consequences. And yes, both sides are guilty of this but you are the one that called me racist. ;)

Secondly, this habit of attributing motive to every perceived slight has got to stop. You don't have the power to read minds or intimately know why a person does what they do. Nor do I, but in the absence of mind-reading we make calculated guesses based on words and/or actions. What is interesting is that two people can witness the same event and can come up with two wildly different explanations of what just occurred. As mature adults we must account for this and take this into consideration. Before I start calling people names I have the responsibility to consider why someone would believe what they believe, even if I disagree with their interpretation. This world is nuanced and while some issues are black and white, there still is a tremendous amount of gray we have to navigate.

Thirdly, I would ask you to honor your agreement that you signed stating that you wouldn't insult or defame other posters. As the mods seem to be absent from this particular thread I am forced to implement my own rules here: If you continue to personally insult me than I am going to stop responding to any thing you have to offer. I have been very forthright in my answers to your baiting questions, let's be honest here, but if I feel you aren't acting in good faith going forward then I am writing you off.

If you would like to provide the documentation proving that Warren benefited from claiming a minority status we can talk about that.  I assume that it's hanging out somewhere with Obama's real birth certificate, and the evidence that the central park 5 should have been convicted.

But that's all really beside the point.  The way that Trump has repeatedly used the term 'Pocahontas' is a racial slur.  That's not my opinion, it's the opinion of the National Congress for American Indians.  (https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/ncai-condemns-president-trump-s-derogatory-use-of-pocahontas--KArFACFlku_jlYnYVYNHg/)  Trump has continued to use the slur after being asked not to.

Why exactly do you believe that you are a better judge of what is racist towards Native people than the National Congress for American Indians?

There's also the fact that Trump is explicitly calling her 'Pocahontas' because he believes that the name itself is an insult:

“She is one of the least productive senators in the United States Senate. We call her ‘Pocahontas’ for a reason.” - https://www.facebook.com/cnbc/posts/she-is-one-of-the-least-productive-senators-in-the-united-states-senate-we-call-/10154439052924369/

 Is Trump insensitive? Yes, and he should out of respect stop using Pocohantus as a punchline

It's not a matter of insensitivity.  It's an identified racial slur.  Repeatedly using it is therefore racist.  When you say things like "Calling Elizabeth Warren Pocohantas is not racist, it's actually quite funny" you are condoning Trump's racist action.  Condoning racist action is also a racist action.

This is why I pointed out that you are racist.

As you appear incapable of maintaining a basic level of decorum, I am ceasing all responses to your posts. Please re-read the attached previous responses.

Stop telling me how racist comments are funny, and I'll stop pointing out that you're racist.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2018, 12:42:56 PM by GuitarStv »

Lews Therin

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2532
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Ottawa
  • Used to be Canadian Ben
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5037 on: November 23, 2018, 12:18:38 PM »
Anyone get the feeling Trump was actually actively trying to restrain himself before the mid-terms, and is now just letting himself go back to his usual self? I'm quite glad I'm canadian!

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9883
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5038 on: November 23, 2018, 12:19:38 PM »
My point is that as a nation we need to come to a consensus of how we would like to shape our country for the future, and immigration is going to play a large role in that make-up. Our defacto response seems to be allowing unchecked illegal immigration which is forcing us to conform to their illegal platform. It's the tail wagging the dog. We are a sovereign nation that must control who is allowed into our nation which shouldn't be that controversial on its face.

I am not an expert on immigration policy and I don't have all of the answers. I am aware this is a contentious issue that will be messy in finding solutions, but the effect of ignoring some hard decisions will again be that forces outside the United States will decide the issue for us. That is not a good position to be in and one we should avoid.

I threw out the suggestion of a moratorium for a year as an opportunity to start this process. Stop the illegal immigration as best as possible, stop all applications for new entries, expedite current enrollees such as your fiancé. Begin the overhaul of our immigration policies. Simple, right? ;)

As a practical matter, I understand there would be huge complications and frankly with as many people that believe Trump is evil, I don't see him accomplishing much. Also, he was unable to fund the wall when he had both the House and Senate and now that the House has flipped he's dead in the water.

@Versatile - this is at least the third time that you have ignored all the previous data that I (and several other posters) have given you regarding recent immigration trends while continuing to beat the drum about 'illegal immigrants'.

No, our defacto national policy is NOT to allow unchecked illegal immigration.  Again, the size of our undocumented immigrant community and the number of people attempting to cross illegally has been going DOWN for two decades.  We are now at multi-generational lows.  Immigration enforcement was drastically tightened under GW Bush and Obama continued that trend.  Fun fact: more illegals were deported under Obama than under any other president. One of the big criticisms of Obama from within his party was that he did not curtail those policies first set in place by W - if anything his administration accelerated them.
   
We already put a great deal of effort into curbing illegal crossings - since 2004 both the number of agents and the total budget has increased by about 50%.  Consequentially, the number illegals who entered this country by illegally crossing the boarder has plummeted (again, see above). It seems we've already entered a realm of 'diminishing returns', as we spend more each successive year to stop fewer people. Personally, I find sending more troops and resources to the southern boarder hard to justify at a time when the number of law enforcement are at an all-time high and the number of apprehensions in '17 was at a 40 year low.

Your suggestion that we have an absolute moratorium on immigration for one year is beyond extreme. The absurdity of that suggestion is akin to saying we ought to just not trade with any other country for a year while we restructure every trade deal. There's over 12 million people who immigrate into the US legally every year, and a slightly smaller number of US citizens immigrate to other countries (emigration). Entire industries are heavily vested in bring in workers from other parts of the world because large US firms already do ~55% of their business is overseas.

If you are going to say that immigration is this huge problem that we need to deal with as a nation, you need to be specific what that problem is. Virtually no sane person wants open boarders, so that's a straw man.  If the policies put into place by Bush and Obama were left unchanged we'd continue to see very few successfully enter this country by crossing the border illegally.  So what is it about immigration that you say we must address?  There are certainly things we could be doing better, and we've suggested a few of them already which you haven't been willing to take up (hint - go back and look at the earlier hosts).

Regarding the Pocahantis comment - you are missing the underlying reason why it's racially insensitive because you are focused on Trump and Warren.  Forget them for a moment.  Anytime anyone calls another person Pocohantis as an insult  - it's denigrating Native American culture.  To say you found it very funny is telling people you are ok making a well known and celebrated Native American historical figure into a derogatory term.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2018, 03:13:30 PM by nereo »

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2095

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 118
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5040 on: November 23, 2018, 02:03:46 PM »
nereo

I'm not ignoring you or your points; I just can't get to you as others keep pre-empting my original order, especially with the name calling. Promise it will be soon but I need to get some stuff done other than spend all day on the internet.

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2095
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5041 on: November 23, 2018, 02:38:43 PM »
I am retired and spend too much time on the internet. Does that make me a bad person?

dang1

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 135
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5042 on: November 23, 2018, 03:18:45 PM »
https://www.syracuse.com/us-news/index.ssf/2018/11/roger_stone_associate_plea_mueller.html

A conservative writer and associate of TRUMP confidant Roger Stone said Friday that he is in plea talks with special counsel Robert Mueller's team. Jerome Corsi told The Associated Press he has been negotiating a potential plea but declined to comment further. He said on a YouTube show last week that he expected to be charged with LYING to federal investigators

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5043 on: November 23, 2018, 03:43:19 PM »
nereo

I'm not ignoring you or your points; I just can't get to you as others keep pre-empting my original order, especially with the name calling. Promise it will be soon but I need to get some stuff done other than spend all day on the internet.

Quote
Calling Elizabeth Warren Pocohantas is not racist, it's actually quite funny

Definitely trolling now.

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 118
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5044 on: November 23, 2018, 06:33:51 PM »
I am retired and spend too much time on the internet. Does that make me a bad person?

Care to expand?

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 118
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5045 on: November 23, 2018, 06:38:37 PM »
nereo

I'm not ignoring you or your points; I just can't get to you as others keep pre-empting my original order, especially with the name calling. Promise it will be soon but I need to get some stuff done other than spend all day on the internet.

Quote
Calling Elizabeth Warren Pocohantas is not racist, it's actually quite funny

Definitely trolling now.

I have never called Elizabeth Warren Pocohantas, but I have chuckled when Trump has. I have already explained my position on this and if you disagree that's o.k. Please stop looking for the gotcha moment and add something constructive to the conversation. Name-calling accomplishes nothing.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8238
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5046 on: November 23, 2018, 06:43:37 PM »
I have never called Elizabeth Warren Pocohantas, but I have chuckled when Trump has... Name-calling accomplishes nothing.

Apparently, it accomplishes making you chuckle at racism. 

sixwings

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 70
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5047 on: November 23, 2018, 06:44:05 PM »
nereo

I'm not ignoring you or your points; I just can't get to you as others keep pre-empting my original order, especially with the name calling. Promise it will be soon but I need to get some stuff done other than spend all day on the internet.

Quote
Calling Elizabeth Warren Pocohantas is not racist, it's actually quite funny

Definitely trolling now.

I have never called Elizabeth Warren Pocohantas, but I have chuckled when Trump has. I have already explained my position on this and if you disagree that's o.k. Please stop looking for the gotcha moment and add something constructive to the conversation. Name-calling accomplishes nothing.

But it's funny when Trump uses it to denigrate native americans. Got it.

You're smart enough to know better. Like would you be cool with your kids talking like Trump? Lying about everything, (or should I say making everything an extreme "hyperbole")

Here's a video of trump accomplishing nothing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Gu7D6AHyc

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 118
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5048 on: November 23, 2018, 07:22:48 PM »
Trump is a bullshitter that regularly embellishes his positions in the hope of getting a middle ground concession. He consistently gets people to talk about the issues he wants to address because they can't ignore him. His point, which is quite valid, is that our Southern border is quite porous and we have an illegal immigrant problem. When hundreds of thousands of people enter this country illegally each year to the tune of billions in dollars in costs each year than that is a noteworthy issue. I read recently we are spending collectively 100 billion a year addressing this problem.
@Versatile - please share with us your source or article detailing how we are spending $100B per year addressing illegal immigration along our southern boarder.  I'm curious how that figure was arrived upon, and what proportion was due enforcement, what proportion was due to costs incurred by illegal immigrants themselves, etc.

Where I find the national dialog lacking is with historical context. By most accounts, the number of people entering the US illegally along our southern boarder has fallen dramatically in the last 15 years, and was almost an order of magnitude greater in the 80s and 90s.  Illegal immigration started to decline sharply during Bush (W)'s second term and that trend continued with Obama. As one of several metrics, apprehensions along the boarder are about 1/3 of where they were in 2000 (source: Factcheck from US Boarder Patrol data)

We've also seen the total population of unauthorized immigrants living in the US fall by over a million people since 2007 (from est. 12.2 to 11.1) showing a net loss of unauthorized immigrants in this country (source: Pew Research Center)

Both of these are occurring while the broader population in the US has expanded - by almost 30MM people just in the last decade.

These, among lots of other data, paint a picture contrary to the one you have suggested; we do not appear to have a massive illegal immigration problem, particularly when compared to recent decades.  Instead, we have many fewer illegal immigrants living in this country and many fewer immigrants apprehended while entering this country. As a percentage of the total population, the illegal immigrant population has been shrinking since 2007 and is around 3%.  For comparison, that is far less than the percentage of people in the US who have been incarcerated (i.e.legitimate criminals @ 4.4%).
From those data I have a hard time concluding anything other than this being a wedge issue, a false canard. 

ETA:  Graphs (below).  Because everyone likes graphs.

We've got far fewer apprehensions in recent years than in previous decades, including the first year of Trump's presidency.

Overall, our undocumented population has stabilized in absolute numbers, and is shrinking as a proportion of the total US population

The majority of illegal immigrants no longer get into the country by crossing the southern boarder illegally.  Rather, they are granted visas and do not leave. This calls into question the very prem,ise that we need more resources and troops along the southern boarder.

Namely FAIR https://fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers

I understand some people have problems with their data collection and I am open to other sources but still at the end of the day it's an enormous number whether they are off by a few billion or not. Of course the counter-argument is that they are still a net gain for the country but I am not convinced by the data I have seen. Do you have reliable sources I could look at?

The number of illegal apprehensions at our Southern Border have indeed been falling with something like 330,000 last year. But let's keep this in context. First of all, that is the number they caught and this number doesn't represent how many were successful in entering. Secondly, that is a lot of people even for a country of our size. Stop and think about that for second and how many resources 300,000 people need, especially third-world citizens. This happens year after year after year.

Your point on Visa over-stayers is noted. For some reason this issue is juxtaposed with the southern border as if we can't enforce both violations. Why can't we crack-down on both?

The fact that we have a million less illegal immigrants than before is good. Let's shut the door on future illegal entries and provide a path for citizenship for the ones that got here. But you have to stop the flood first or it would be pointless.

Lastly, by illegally entering this country or any other, it is extremely unfair to the people that stood in line and played by the rules. I don't know why that doesn't get talked about more often. If immigration laws aren't enforced and lawful candidates are punished, then the incentive is to become a lawbreaker. This should be avoided.




It's a question of fairness.

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 118
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5049 on: November 23, 2018, 07:44:34 PM »
nereo

I'm not ignoring you or your points; I just can't get to you as others keep pre-empting my original order, especially with the name calling. Promise it will be soon but I need to get some stuff done other than spend all day on the internet.

Quote
Calling Elizabeth Warren Pocohantas is not racist, it's actually quite funny

Definitely trolling now.

I have never called Elizabeth Warren Pocohantas, but I have chuckled when Trump has. I have already explained my position on this and if you disagree that's o.k. Please stop looking for the gotcha moment and add something constructive to the conversation. Name-calling accomplishes nothing.

But it's funny when Trump uses it to denigrate native americans. Got it.

You're smart enough to know better. Like would you be cool with your kids talking like Trump? Lying about everything, (or should I say making everything an extreme "hyperbole")

Here's a video of trump accomplishing nothing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Gu7D6AHyc

He was denigrating Elizabeth Warren for using the dubious claim of being native american, calling her Pocohantas at the absurdity of a blue-eyed blonde lady claiming to be native. Everyone's anger should be directed towards the person that misrepresented herself, appropriating another's heritage, for personal gain.

You are smart enough to know better especially after I have explained all of this in detail already. If you disagree with my premise, that is fine, but even if you disagree that she misrepresented herself than you have to understand that the humor lies at the expense of Warren, and not at the expense of native americans.

Got it? Has this country lost all sense of humor? I swear, you guys have to be some of the most dour people I have ever come across. It's as if you are begging to be offended. Surely this isn't true in real life for you guys? That has to be a miserable existence if true. Hopefully it's not and this forum just brings out the worst in you. I don't know but please everyone, take a moment and read what I write and try to understand before the insults start to fly.