President Trump & the USA

[MC Prussian]

5 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Chilling.  They've officially stopped pretending it would seem.

 

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

Except on here.

Ok, so explain how it is allegedly "racist" to call for someone to return to their home country if they don't like it in the USA? A country that is miles better off than Somalia, a country Omar fled?

Trump did not attack Omar based on her race.

 

Xenophobic? More likely. Racist? Doubtful.

 

All in all, I find that Trump vs. Four Congresswomen of the Apocalypse rhetoric dumb and a waste of time. They're all pretty much making it evident how much of an egomaniac each one of them really is.

Meanwhile, there's a sex scandal involving Bill Clinton again... And no liberal TV station in the US is covering it. All focused on the president they hate so much. Coincidence?

[Lionator]

8 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

 

Ok, so explain how it is allegedly "racist" to call for someone to return to their home country if they don't like it in the USA? A country that is miles better off than Somalia, a country Omar fled?

Trump did not attack Omar based on her race.

 

Xenophobic? More likely. Racist? Doubtful.

 

All in all, I find that Trump vs. Four Congresswomen of the Apocalypse rhetoric dumb and a waste of time. They're all pretty much making it evident how much of an egomaniac each one of them really is.

Meanwhile, there's a sex scandal involving Bill Clinton again... And no liberal TV station in the US is covering it. All focused on the president they hate so much. Coincidence?

America is her home country. There's a reason why she specifically is being targeted more than the other 3.

 

The exact same sex scandal that Donald Trump is also implicated in?

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, MC Prussian said:

 

Ok, so explain how it is allegedly "racist" to call for someone to return to their home country if they don't like it in the USA? A country that is miles better off than Somalia, a country Omar fled?

Trump did not attack Omar based on her race.

 

Xenophobic? More likely. Racist? Doubtful.

 

All in all, I find that Trump vs. Four Congresswomen of the Apocalypse rhetoric dumb and a waste of time. They're all pretty much making it evident how much of an egomaniac each one of them really is.

Meanwhile, there's a sex scandal involving Bill Clinton again... And no liberal TV station in the US is covering it. All focused on the president they hate so much. Coincidence?

When you start arguing "it's not racist, it's xenophobic" that's when you should step back and realise you may be opting for the wrong side of history.  All semantics about which specific word in the dictionary best describes this particular avenue of hate-mongering aside, it's clear othering of a person who is legally a contributing citizen of the USA.  The sex scandal involves a lot of people who should all go down for their crimes, not just the one you don't like because he's on the wrong political football team.  I don't watch American television so I have no idea if you're being accurate about them not covering it but without evidence I'm going to remain dubious based on the fact that I've had left-wing Americans talk to me quite openly about Clinton being involved in it so they must be getting that news from somewhere and I doubt they watch Fox.

[MC Prussian]

30 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

If you're going to make these kinds of statements could you provide some evidence?

 

Googling "Ilhan Omar anti semite" brings up an apology towards Jewish groups as the top result, your first statement appears to be erroneous.

 

Googling "Ilhan Omar Al Qaeda" brings up a few articles, most usefully factcheck.org's investigation into Trump's claims that she supports the terrorist group.  Surprisingly it turns out he's 'misunderstood' a 2013 interview where she definitely didn't refuse to condemn Al Qaeda but rather questioned the inherently racist belief that American Muslims should be duty bound to condemn every terrorist attack as though it's not obvious that people living peacefully and legally in the USA don't support terrorists. The bit about comparing Al Qaeda to England and the US appears to come from her discussing why we stick to the Arabic name for these groups, the implication being that stoking prejudice plays a part in it.  It's a point I don't really agree with because as far as I'm aware we're just using the names the groups themselves chose in the same way we refer to people like Antifa or Incels.  Your second statement appears to be erroneou.

 

Refuses to condemn terror attacks?  Refuses to play into the racism of being asked if she supports a terror group is more accurate.  It's covered in the previous link but here's a partisan article claiming she refuses to denounce Al Qaeda despite the true meaning of the quotes being obvious to anybody who reads beyond the headline.  These hate mongers are getting lazier.  In any case your third statement appears to be erroneous.

 

Send her back, drink the kool aid, don't question your masters, get married, reproduce, obey, obey, obey.

It's all about the Benjamins, apparently.

 

Here's a track record of Omar's rhetoric:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/6/18251639/ilhan-omar-israel-anti-semitism-jews

 

Omar - and her three congresswoman colleagues - were also recently asked in the hallways of the Capitol to publicly condemn Al-Qaeda. All four declined to respond. How difficult is it to denounce a terrorist organization? In particular one that has cost thousands of lives 18 years ago?

 

Yes, some of what Trump said about Omar, for example, has been proven false. That doesn't mean that she's not an expert in dangerous and antisemitic verbal diarrhea.

Even the Democrats themselves, as shown in the Vox piece, tried to reprimand her, but surprisingly enough, didn't have the guts to go the full nine yards.

 

Omar is also under investigation in her home state of Minnesota for tax and campaign finance violations and allegedly marrying her brother (temporarily), breaking immigration laws in the process:

Quote

The board's reprimand comes after the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board released a report Thursday that showed the Minnesota Democrat had multiple campaign finance violations and may have broken federal tax law. 

The report noted that Omar had filed taxes jointly with her current husband Ahmed Hirsi in 2014 and 2015 even though the two were not legally married until 2018.

http://www.startribune.com/ilhan-omar-s-credibility-takes-another-hit/511152612/?refresh=true

Edited 18 July 2019 by MC Prussian

[MC Prussian]

3 minutes ago, Lionator said:

America is her home country. There's a reason why she specifically is being targeted more than the other 3.

 

The exact same sex scandal that Donald Trump is also implicated in?

She was born in Somalia and fled the country in search for a better life in the US.

I don't like the way Trump phrases it, but the gist of it for me is that she should be more thankful and proactive and engaging when trying to make America better, which is what her job is.

She and her three colleagues currently waste too much time on criticizing a president, who has helped to prolong the economic upturn that was initiated under Obama at the end of the latter's last term, whilst they should put more helpful policies out there.

They're putting on a show, and the liberal media can't get enough of it. Anything to distract from Democrat scandals, e.g. the Epstein case, for instance.

 

Donald Trump never flew on Epstein's plane and disavowed him some 15 years ago after he threw him out of the Mar Lago resort, and never spoke with Epstein again.

 

Clinton, meanwhile, is looking at 22+ trips to Epstein's Paedo Island, some of them without the Secret Service as his entourage:

https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/economics/epstein-sex-scandal-flight-logs-show-clinton-not-trump-more-likely-involved-3onx7WVPwkydxT8j--LwOw/

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

@Carl the Llama

 

It wouldnt let me repy to your post for some reason

 

All those articles do not refute what I said at all!  I actually watched videos of her saying those things, so I know the quotes

, I heard and saw how she spoke, I heard the questions

 

She doesnt positively dismiss the accusations. She skirts around them.  Its what she does. Compare it to Trump who when pressed impatiently says again and again how much he despises racism.  She can't actually bring herself to condemn Al Qaeda.  Show me one quote.  When asked to condemn the attack on the ICE facility none of The Squad condemned it.  Because they condone it, it reflects their politics.  AOC's comments in particular could be said to be responsible for that with much more credibility than linking Trump to far right groups - especially as CNN brough on a white nationalist the other day who said Trump is not furthering the cause of white nationalism!  CNN ffs!

 

Here is how Omar speaks about Al Qaeda.  I used to buy the whole narrative to a degree of western intervention being to blame, but at the end of the day when the West takes in people and welcomes them and allows them to thrive and they dont appreciate the openness and benevolence of that, criticism of that is fine by me

 

 

Im bored of being a Trump defending Trump-bot atm so will recede into the shadows for a bit.  Here is a good article showing a narrative that obviously seems to have escaped many on here

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/the-trump-steamroller/

 

 

Tbh it doesnt matter what a few loons think anyway.  Trump is sticking it to the PC crowd in a wonderfully effective way;  he's buttressing the populace against the rampant progressive culture which most people detest, and he's getting s*** done.  Smears are failing increasingly as are his political opponents.   He's going for the tech companies who are censoring the online debate on the big platforms - this is in fact one of the biggest issues of the day which so many on here arent bothered about, because freedom of expression isnt as important as shouting 'RACIST!' all day every day

 

 

 

 

 

[MC Prussian]

8 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

When you start arguing "it's not racist, it's xenophobic" that's when you should step back and realise you may be opting for the wrong side of history.  All semantics about which specific word in the dictionary best describes this particular avenue of hate-mongering aside, it's clear othering of a person who is legally a contributing citizen of the USA.  The sex scandal involves a lot of people who should all go down for their crimes, not just the one you don't like because he's on the wrong political football team.  I don't watch American television so I have no idea if you're being accurate about them not covering it but without evidence I'm going to remain dubious based on the fact that I've had left-wing Americans talk to me quite openly about Clinton being involved in it so they must be getting that news from somewhere and I doubt they watch Fox.

It is correct. Anyone who has committed a crime should be punished for it. Exactly. Trump, Clinton, Democrats, Republicans, I don't care.

 

There's a reason the word "xenophobia" exists.

: fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign

Just because it doesn't fly with your definition of "racism", doesn't mean it is factually "racist".

Trump did not attack Omar or the other three women based on their race. Fact.

 

I've said this many times before, in the US especially, there's this weird tendency (on the left) to call anyone who disagrees with you "racist", the term is currently being applied way too broadly.

[Carl the Llama]

2 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

It's all about the Benjamins, apparently.

 

Here's a track record of Omar's rhetoric:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/6/18251639/ilhan-omar-israel-anti-semitism-jews

 

Omar - and her three congresswoman colleagues - were also recently asked in the hallways of the Capitol to publicly condemn Al-Qaeda. All four declined to respond. How difficult is it to denounce a terrorist organization? In particular one that has cost thousands of lives 18 years ago?

 

Yes, some of what Trump said about Omar, for example, has been proved false. That doesn't mean that she's not an expert in dangerous and antisemitic verbal diarrhea.

Even the Democrts themselvs, as shown in the Vox piece, tried to reprimand her, but surprisingly enough, didn't have the guts to go the full nine yards.

 

Omar is also under investigation in her home state of Minnesota for tax and campaign finance violations and allegedly marrying her brother (temporarily), breaking immigration laws in the process:

http://www.startribune.com/ilhan-omar-s-credibility-takes-another-hit/511152612/?refresh=true

The condemnation question has been covered already.  If you want to carry on holding that stick then I'll make sure to @ you for a condemnation every time there's a new atrocity committed by somebody with a light skin tone and I expect you to comply each time without fail.  Deal?

Something you seem to be missing in that Vox piece:

Quote

 

It’s also the case that Republican officials frequently call on anti-Semitic tropes and say worse about other minority groups without nearly so much bipartisan condemnation. Pushing for a House vote on anti-Semitism really did feel like unfairly singling out Omar — and whitewashing the GOP’s record in the process. That’s why progressives rallied to Omar’s defense, and why the Democratic leadership has been forced to reconsider its initial resolution.

In short, the entire situation is a mess — and an example of how difficult it is for Democrats to carry on an important conversation about anti-Semitism on the left without downplaying the far more pressing problem of anti-Semitism on the right.

 

 

As for marrying her brother... as very obviously reliable as your source is, think about this:  Why even would she marry him to help him get into the country when he could just as easily apply for permanent residency as the sibling of a US Citizen?  It doesn't make sense.

[Carl the Llama]

6 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

@Carl the Llama

 

It wouldnt let me repy to your post for some reason

 

All those articles do not refute what I said at all!  I actually watched videos of her saying those things, so I know the quotes

, I heard and saw how she spoke, I heard the questions

 

She doesnt positively dismiss the accusations. She skirts around them.  Its what she does. Compare it to Trump who when pressed impatiently says again and again how much he despises racism.  She can't actually bring herself to condemn Al Qaeda.  Show me one quote.  When asked to condemn the attack on the ICE facility none of The Squad condemned it.  Because they condone it, it reflects their politics.  AOC's comments in particular could be said to be responsible for that with much more credibility than linking Trump to far right groups - especially as CNN brough on a white nationalist the other day who said Trump is not furthering the cause of white nationalism!  CNN ffs!

 

Here is how Omar speaks about Al Qaeda.  I used to buy the whole narrative to a degree of western intervention being to blame, but at the end of the day when the West takes in people and welcomes them and allows them to thrive and they dont appreciate the openness and benevolence of that, criticism of that is fine by me

 

 

Im bored of being a Trump defending Trump-bot atm so will recede into the shadows for a bit.  Here is a good article showing a narrative that obviously seems to have escaped many on here

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/the-trump-steamroller/

 

 

Tbh it doesnt matter what a few loons think anyway.  Trump is sticking it to the PC crowd in a wonderfully effective way;  he's buttressing the populace against the rampant progressive culture which most people detest, and he's getting s*** done.  Smears are failing increasingly as are his political opponents.   He's going for the tech companies who are censoring the online debate on the big platforms - this is in fact one of the biggest issues of the day which so many on here arent bothered about, because freedom of expression isnt as important as shouting 'RACIST!' all day every day

 

 

 

 

 

It's not the fear of Al-Qaeda she's mocking, it's the fear of Arabic language full stop.  In any case I already addressed this, I don't agree with the point that we keep the Arabic names for impact, she was misguided here but she definitely isn't defending terrorism.

[MC Prussian]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

The condemnation question has been covered already.  If you want to carry on holding that stick then I'll make sure to @ you for a condemnation every time there's a new atrocity committed by somebody with a light skin tone and I expect you to comply each time without fail.  Deal?

Something you seem to be missing in that Vox piece:

 

As for marrying her brother... as very obviously reliable as your source is, think about this:  Why even would she marry him to help him get into the country when he could just as easily apply for permanent residency as the sibling of a US Citizen?  It doesn't make sense.

I don't see how difficult it is to condemn terrorist groups or attacks carried out by Antifa. A simple reply, a civilized answer such as "I think what they're doing is wrong, violence is not the answer" would suffice. They can't even bring themselves to that. By not condemning those extremists, they make themselves look complicit, tolerating or even supporting these very same groups.

 

There may be (more) Republicans being (more) racist or rather (more) antisemitic than on the Democrat side, so far, I haven't read or heard anything about them. The liberal media in the shape of CNN, MSNBC, ABC and CBS would be so quick to jump on them, there'd be no way the audience could avoid it.

 

As for the "marrying her brother" issue, Omar herself could clear it up herself. Something she's refused to ever since the story broke the surface...

[Carl the Llama]

6 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

It is correct. Anyone who has committed a crime should be punished for it. Exactly. Trump, Clinton, Democrats, Republicans, I don't care.

 

There's a reason the word "xenophobia" exists.

: fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign

Just because it doesn't fly with your definition of "racism", doesn't mean it is factually "racist".

Trump did not attack Omar or the other three women based on their race. Fact.

 

I've said this many times before, in the US especially, there's this weird tendency (on the left) to call anyone who disagrees with you "racist", the term is currently being applied way too broadly.

You've agreed that Trump's words are xenophobic.  You've defined xenophobia as "fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign".  And you view that as a defence?

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, MC Prussian said:

I don't see how difficult it is to condemn terrorist groups or attacks carried out by Antifa. A simple reply, a civilized answer such as "I think what they're doing is wrong, violence is not the answer" would suffice. They can't even bring themselves to that. By not condemning those extremists, they make themselves look complicit, tolerating or even supporting these very same groups.

 

There may be (more) Republicans being (more) racist or rather (more) antisemitic than on the Democrat side, so far, I haven't read or heard anything about them. The liberal media in the shape of CNN, MSNBC, ABC and CBS would be so quick to jump on them, there'd be no way the audience could avoid it.

 

As for the "marrying her brother" issue, Omar herself could clear it up herself. Something she's refused to ever since the story broke the surface...

Trump has refused to clear up whether he wants to bang his daughter ever since that story broke the surface, are you sure you want to defend an incestuous child banger?

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

6 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

It's not the fear of Al-Qaeda she's mocking, it's the fear of Arabic language full stop.  In any case I already addressed this, I don't agree with the point that we keep the Arabic names for impact, she was misguided here but she definitely isn't defending terrorism.

Fair enough. Probably not much further debate here. I will say you seem to give her the benefit of the doubt much more than you would Trump. Misguided but not racist could so easily be applied to those tweets he made. But you wont have that for a second

[Vacamion]

 

What's really noticeable for me is that not everyone behind him joins in the chant. 

 

It indicates that they know that "send her back" is morally wrong, or at least, transgressive. 

[Carl the Llama]

2 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Fair enough. Probably not much further debate here. I will say you seem to give her the benefit of the doubt much more than you would Trump. Misguided but not racist could so easily be applied to those tweets he made. But you wont have that for a second

One is an attempt to speak out against hate, the other is an attempt to stoke it.  Only one of them seems to have had the desired effect.

Edited 18 July 2019 by Carl the Llama

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

9 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

The condemnation question has been covered already.  If you want to carry on holding that stick then I'll make sure to @ you for a condemnation every time there's a new atrocity committed by somebody with a light skin tone and I expect you to comply each time without fail.  Deal?

Something you seem to be missing in that Vox piece:

 

As for marrying her brother... as very obviously reliable as your source is, think about this:  Why even would she marry him to help him get into the country when he could just as easily apply for permanent residency as the sibling of a US Citizen?  It doesn't make sense.

Im talking about AOC and the likes not condemning it. Not talking about you because you're not as crazy as they are. I know you would condemn it without having to ask

 

The reports say its he failed in his application. Either way it seems evidence is building from reports ive read. We'll see. She has deflected from it like she always does by saying its about racism. Just like AOC does. Race race race. If you criticise me you're racist

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

27 minutes ago, Lionator said:

America is her home country. There's a reason why she specifically is being targeted more than the other 3.

 

The exact same sex scandal that Donald Trump is also implicated in?

He is not the one implicated

 

That sex scandal is only even seeing the light of day because Trump beat Clinton in the election. Bill is much more likely up to his neck. Trump banned Epstein from his resort after falling out with him years ago

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

3 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

 

What's really noticeable for me is that not everyone behind him joins in the chant. 

 

It indicates that they know that "send her back" is morally wrong, or at least, transgressive. 

I actually agree that its not right. But I think there is a trolly aspect to it, like there is to Trump's presidency

 

I dont think they mean it sincerely. They know it winds people up and its just an insult to Omar

 

She is a US citizen, she may be a nasty cow, but she is a citizen and has her rights. I dont think anyone really denies that

[MC Prussian]

6 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

You've agreed that Trump's words are xenophobic.  You've defined xenophobia as "fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign".  And you view that as a defence?

I don't see how you come to the conclusion that I'm defending him.

I've said before that I find his wording bad (surely ignorant based on the "country where you came from" argument, and clumsy to say the least), and that Twitter especially leaves a lot of room for interpretation and dangerous rhetoric - on all sides.

 

In the end it's a silly "Us vs. Him" scenario that sees nobody coming out as the winner, except a president who is expected to be re-elected.

The Democrats have brought this upon themselves, by deflecting from the true issues in the US, joining in the childish antics and by proposing shallow, lifeless, uncharismatic 2020 contenders. They are a mess. There's a clear Far-Left movement within the party that is giving them serious headaches.

[Finnegan]

51 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

When you start arguing "it's not racist, it's xenophobic" that's when you should step back and realise you may be opting for the wrong side of history.  All semantics about which specific word in the dictionary best describes this particular avenue of hate-mongering aside, it's clear othering of a person who is legally a contributing citizen of the USA.  The sex scandal involves a lot of people who should all go down for their crimes, not just the one you don't like because he's on the wrong political football team.  I don't watch American television so I have no idea if you're being accurate about them not covering it but without evidence I'm going to remain dubious based on the fact that I've had left-wing Americans talk to me quite openly about Clinton being involved in it so they must be getting that news from somewhere and I doubt they watch Fox.

 

Carl, you're low key one of my favourite posters. 

 

I enjoyed this post. 

[Mr Mister]

Once and for all, the House backs racism nowadays.

[leicsmac]

To be honest, the Dems could and perhaps should be focusing on policy rather than Trump himself and saying directly that the Repubs are endangering women's and minority rights, and endangering the clean air, clean water and general environmental future of the country through their policies.

 

Question is, how many people will listen to policy based arguments in that way rather than soundbites?

[MC Prussian]

2 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Trump has refused to clear up whether he wants to bang his daughter ever since that story broke the surface, are you sure you want to defend an incestuous child banger?

And that is relevant how?

He said: "If Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her" (in 2006).

That is somewhat creepy and odd, sure. But he didn't go any further than this:

https://www.elitedaily.com/p/9-donald-trump-quotes-about-ivanka-that-are-super-uncomfortable-8646720

 

Never once stated he wants to "bang" her.

 

Anyhow, do these statements break any laws? It's creepy comments from a flawed, egocentric president. From what I can tell, he and his daughter otherwise have a healthy and amicable relationship.

 

Do you see how that deflects from the real issues in the US? And how is that in any way or shape comparable to what Omar has done in terms of campaign finances or breaking the law?

Edited 18 July 2019 by MC Prussian

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

I don't see how you come to the conclusion that I'm defending him.

I've said before that I find his wording bad (surely ignorant based on the "country where you came from" argument, and clumsy to say the least), and that Twitter especially leaves a lot of room for interpretation and dangerous rhetoric - on all sides.

 

In the end it's a silly "Us vs. Him" scenario that sees nobody coming out as the winner, except a president who is expected to be re-elected.

The Democrats have brought this upon themselves, by deflecting from the true issues in the US, joining in the childish antics and by proposing shallow, lifeless, uncharismatic 2020 contenders. They are a mess. There's a clear Far-Left movement within the party that is giving them serious headaches.

It could have something to do with the fact that you literally can't stop yourself chiming in to explain how he's misunderstood every time he does something objectionable.  If it walks like a racist supporting duck...

 

25 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

And that is relevant how?

He said: "If Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her" (in 2006).

That is somewhat creepy and odd, sure. But he didn't go any further than this:

https://www.elitedaily.com/p/9-donald-trump-quotes-about-ivanka-that-are-super-uncomfortable-8646720

 

Never once stated he wants to "bang" her.

 

Anyhow, do these statements break any laws? It's creepy comments from a flawed, egocentric president. From what I can tell, he and his daughter otherwise have a healthy and amicable relationship.

 

Do you see how that deflects from the real issues in the US? And how is that in any way or shape comparable to what Omar has done in terms of campaign finances or breaking the law?

As far as I'm aware Omar has never once stated that she married her daughter.  Yet here we are discussing it because you believe it to be obviously true.  Your selective need for proof while always insisting you're being fair and balanced is fascinating.

 

2 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Im talking about AOC and the likes not condemning it. Not talking about you because you're not as crazy as they are. I know you would condemn it without having to ask

 

The reports say its he failed in his application. Either way it seems evidence is building from reports ive read. We'll see. She has deflected from it like she always does by saying its about racism. Just like AOC does. Race race race. If you criticise me you're racist

Here's the problem:  It is absolutely fair to point out that there is a history on the left of jumping for the race card when it doesn't really apply (usually by fringe elements but it always gets blown up).  It's a strong claim to make when the evidence isn't there so naturally people will get annoyed at seeing racism this, racism that everywhere.

 

Unfortunately one result of this is that people become so used to fighting back against overzealous snowflake types that when somebody important on the right gets called out for demonstrating very real and obvious prejudice it's suddenly very hard for their supporters to see past the Pavlovian instinct to defend it.

 

For my own part I've been very careful with claiming racism, I'm pretty sure I've not used the word to describe Donald Trump before, preferring to be diplomatic about the obvious racial undertones to some of his outlandish remarks.  Unfortunately the recent tweets are too blatant for it to be described as anything else so I'm dropping the caution for this one because it's clear as day.

 

As for Omar, if evidence doesn't come to the fore to prove the claims about marrying her brother then it will smell no less racially charged than the birther movement.  I stand to be corrected by solid evidence.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

3 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

It could have something to do with the fact that you literally can't stop yourself chiming in to explain how he's misunderstood every time he does something objectionable.  If it walks like a racist supporting duck...

 

As far as I'm aware Omar has never once stated that she married her daughter.  Yet here we are discussing it because you believe it to be obviously true.  Your selective need for proof while always insisting you're being fair and balanced is fascinating.

 

Here's the problem:  It is absolutely fair to point out that there is a history on the left of jumping for the race card when it doesn't really apply (usually by fringe elements but it always gets blown up).  It's a strong claim to make when the evidence isn't there so naturally people will get annoyed at seeing racism this, racism that everywhere.

 

Unfortunately one result of this is that people become so used to fighting back against overzealous snowflake types that when somebody important on the right gets called out for demonstrating very real and obvious prejudice it's suddenly very hard for their supporters to see past the Pavlovian instinct to defend it.

 

For my own part I've been very careful with claiming racism, I'm pretty sure I've not used the word to describe Donald Trump before, preferring to be diplomatic about the obvious racial undertones to some of his outlandish remarks.  Unfortunately the recent tweets are too blatant for it to be described as anything else so I'm dropping the caution for this one because it's clear as day.

 

As for Omar, if evidence doesn't come to the fore to prove the claims about marrying her brother then it will smell no less racially charged than the birther movement.  I stand to be corrected by solid evidence.

I will say fair enough about Omar rumours.

 

You did say you think you've never used the word racist in regarss to Trump whilst stating in the same post "if it walks like a racist supporting..."

 

Come on, thats an implication that Trump is racist right there. Along with saying "racial undertones". Also calling Prussian racist supporting which he obviously isnt.

 

But because he supports Trump he is racist. You have to play fair with this