*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[BananaStand]

I just counter that they are being dicks in doing so, and agree with Trump that it is potentially a disciplinary matter.

Racist!!

Spoiler: Show

jk

[OngBonga]

For the record, I would just like to remind everyone I am not a racist, I am in fact a xenophobe.

[BananaStand]

For the record, I would just like to remind everyone I am not a racist, I am in fact a xenophobe.

Kinda the same thing in 2017

[OngBonga]

Kinda the same thing in 2017

Yeah just like anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are the same in 2017.

I mean Miko Peled is an anti-Semite these days. No, I hadn't heard of him either until recently. A Jewish American born in Jerusalem whose father was a general who fought two Israeli wars and whose grandfather signed the Israeli Declaration of Independance.

He's an anti-Semite because he dared to suggest that Holocaust denial is a valid subject of discussion.

We live in a world where Jews can be anti-Semites for expressing an opinion about free speech.

Fuck 2017.

[wufwugy]

Everything would be so much easier if all kinds of protesting were made illegal.

virtually nobody who is upset about the kneeling thinks that. those upset about the kneeling tend to favor the right to protest the most too.

in a free country -- and in this case a free market regarding transactions between nfl producers and consumers -- people need the right to protest (like by kneeling during an anthem), and other people need the right to protest that protest (like no longer purchasing the product by those kneeling to the anthem).

[wufwugy]

i thought it was clear that kaepernick had one of the worst seasons of any quarterback before nobody picked him back up. i dont follow it much anymore

[BananaStand]

i thought it was clear that kaepernick had one of the worst seasons of any quarterback before nobody picked him back up. i dont follow it much anymore

Not even close. He played in 12 games in 2016 and had a passer rating of 90.7. That puts him 26th among all quarterbacks that year (there are 32 total teams). Also, that ranking is kinda bogus. #3 on the list is Chase Daniel who only threw one pass all year. It was a completion, so his QB rating is really high because his completion percentage is 100%. If I throw out all the QB's who started less than half the season in 2016, then Kaepernick ranks somewhere in the high-teens. Very much middle-of-the-road.

So if each team has carries 2 or 3 quarterbacks, then there are probably 70-90 in the whole league, and Kaepernick ranks in the top 20. It really shouldn't be in doubt whether or not he's good enough to play. He clearly has the ability to be average.

But if you're average, it means there are a ton of other guys out there just like you. Any other QB is more or less just as good as you are. So if a team can get an average QB without all the activism and nonsense, they will. And they should. But when other activists parse the narrative to their liking, all the public hears is "QB jobless cuz of activism". And the response is "but free speech tho!"

Kaepernick seems to think he deserves a job because he's just as good as anyone else out there. But because of the headaches that he brings (which he created himself) he now has to demonstrate some kind of advanced talent. He has to make his value worth the additional headaches. And he hasn't done that. So when an NFL owner has to choose between Kaepernick and the noise he brings, or some other forgettable average knucklehead who can deliver the same on-field performance, then they choose the average knucklehead. So CK remains unemployed.

i dont follow it much anymore

I thought we were the same person! What have I been watching!!??

[boost]

Now the owners are realizing there's value in preventing the fallout from leaving a quarterback jobless in a way that can easily be, and will be read as punishment for the player choosing to speak up about a social issue.

The league really screwed this up, and their actions show that they realize it now. They should have made sure CK kept a job, so long as the attention was on, yet come out strong with superficial patriotism and even stronger with statements on the value of the first amendment. "We wish he wouldn't take a knee, but we are glad we live in a country where our brave sons and daughters have fought to give him that right."

Boom, NFL is a hero to all.

[BananaStand]

Now the owners are realizing there's value in preventing the fallout from leaving a quarterback jobless in a way that can easily be, and will be read as punishment for the player choosing to speak up about a social issue.

I realize there is still some debate about this. But the 'reading' of the situation should be obvious. CK would have a job if we wasn't an activist. His unemployment is a direct result of his decision to mix his personal beliefs with his professional responsibilities.

HE made that decision. HE committed those acts. And now he is a victim because his actions have consequences?? That is some serious snowflake bullshit.

What blows my mind, is that there are people that think that this is somehow morally objectionable. Try it at your job. Stand up in the cafeteria, raise your fist, and say "black power". Maybe leave some anti-abortion pamphlets in the break room. Show your support for cops by hanging one of those blue-stripe flags in your cubicle. I promise you that your boss wont' like it, and will put a stop to it in order to prevent a disruptive distraction in the workplace.

Why do NFL owners not have the same right? I admit its anecdotal evidence, but the Steelers loss demonstrated to me that this is a distraction. It results in a lack of focus. And that hurts the on-field product. Shouldn't the team be allowed to manage its personnel in a way that best benefits its stakeholders?

The league really screwed this up, and their actions show that they realize it now

When you say "the league" are you talking about the NFL itself, the corporate entity that oversees the management of the sport? Or is the "league" referring to a general collective all 32 teams?

They should have made sure CK kept a job,

Who should have?

so long as the attention was on, yet come out strong with superficial patriotism and even stronger with statements on the value of the first amendment. "We wish he wouldn't take a knee, but we are glad we live in a country where our brave sons and daughters have fought to give him that right."

Boom, NFL is a hero to all.

Ummmm.....hello? That's what they did the entire time CK was in the league doing this stuff. This has been going on for over a year. The big dust up this week is because Trump opened his mouth about it.

This is actually getting funny now. All I heard the last five days was massive outrage at Trump. When he says "fire the people who don't agree with my beliefs" it's called Orwellian and unconstitutional. Boost's latest post however just argues the inverse. Teams should be forced to HIRE someone just to demonstrate political sympathy? How's that not Orwellian or unconstitutional?

CK's actions offended the vast vast vast majority of the team's paying customers. And you're saying it's an injustice that he's jobless??

[BananaStand]

If you need yet another illustration of the hypocrisy on the left....

On one hand the left says.......
"Colin Kaepernick shouldn't lose his job for exercising his first amendment rights! UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!"

On the other hand the left says....
"A woman exercising her second amendment rights at work?? Nah, we hate guns. Fuck the constitution. Corporate rules apply here. Good luck with your Gofundme page bitch"

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/26...y-suspect.html



Imagine this scenario...
Imagine CK is a white guy who heavily sympathizes with pro-life causes. And instead of taking a knee during the anthem to protest America's treatment of minorities, he instead holds his arms and sways as if he is cradling a baby.

What do you think the media narrative would be then? What would be the NFL's reaction then?

[OngBonga]

His unemployment is a direct result of his decision to mix his personal beliefs with his professional responsibilities. HE made that decision. HE committed those acts. And now he is a victim because his actions have consequences?? That is some serious snowflake bullshit.

Yep.

If you're going to act unprofessionally in this manner, then either your cause needs to have an awful lot of public support (a very clear majority), or you need to be fucking world class so no team dares drop you.

I wouldn't employ him, not unless he was clearly the best player in his position I could realistically sign.

[wufwugy]

Trump preparing executive order to allow across state lines sale of health insurance.

Fucking yes. To fix healthcare, this is needed. Big time. Granted, the EO probably won't work technically but it could lead to real action by states and Congress. The EO helps box scum politicians in so that they have to do the right thing instead of what they normally do.

[wufwugy]

Barry's brother makes thought-provoking points.

[wufwugy]

Can't Critique The Malik!

[wufwugy]

[boost]

Ummm.. BananaStand, you read a whole lot into my post that absolutely was not there.

I guess I wasn't completely clear, but this being a poker forum, I thought the fact that I was critiquing their play, not their morals would be picked up on. I'm fairly agnostic on whether CK deserved to lose his job over this, whether or not he did lose his job over this (I don't follow football closely, and I'm not sure who to believe regarding his skills), whether it's morally objectionable to fire a player for this sort of protest, etc.

What I do know is that it appears they did fire him for it, and there are now a whole host of players taking a knee, who are almost certainly less valuable to their given teams than CK was, and who are not going to be fired over it. What gives?Whether they had the moral high ground in firing him-- whether he was being disrespectful or whether he was using his position to respectfully highlight a social issue that he finds important, the 49'ers appear to have made an example of him, and the other teams at least tacitly supported this move when they refused to open their club to CK. And the move backfired. Football is mired in a more divisive atmosphere now. Their apparent bluff was called, and now they're paying up.

Again, I'm fairly agnostic about the morality on all sides here-- but I think there's some strange doublethink going on in your post. As I understand it, you think that it is not morally objectionable for an employer to fire staff for not participating in patriotic pageantry. Therefore it follows, there is no issue with an employer forcing staff, by threat of termination, to perform overt patriotic gestures.

I don't want to misrepresent the facts on the ground, nor do I want to misrepresent your position here-- so please let me know where I made a leap.

[BananaStand]

I don't want to misrepresent the facts on the ground, nor do I want to misrepresent your position here-- so please let me know where I made a leap.

Your use of the word "fired" makes your whole post into an egregious misrepresentation of facts on the ground.

Colin Kaepernick HAD a contract with the 49ers for the 2016 and 2017 seasons, with 2017 being what's called a "player-option". That means that CK can decide at the start of the year whether or not he wants to play under that contract for that year.

In other words, if CK wanted to play this year, all he had to do was say "yes please"

CK exercised his player option, and opted out of his contract believing he could hit the open market and make more money from another team.

He grossly over-estimated his own value.

[BananaStand]

Again, I'm fairly agnostic about the morality on all sides here-- but I think there's some strange doublethink going on in your post.

Disagree

As I understand it, you think that it is not morally objectionable for an employer to fire staff for not participating in patriotic pageantry.

Some loaded language there, but yes. I think it's totally fine if an employer chooses to enforce consequences if one of its employees chooses to do something that offends the overwhelming majority of its paying customers. There are lots of jobs out there with rules and people who get fired for breaking those rules. Show up on time, wear steel toed boots, and for fucks sake..DON'T PISS OFF THE CUSTOMERS!

Therefore it follows, there is no issue with an employer forcing staff, by threat of termination, to perform overt patriotic gestures

Right

So where's the doublethink? Yes, a team can make its own rules about the anthem and it can punish players for not following the rules. I'm not even sure why that's ambiguous My comment regarding your post was in relation to this passage here:

The league really screwed this up, and their actions show that they realize it now. They should have made sure CK kept a job,

What you said here is that another entity, the league, should intervene and force a team to put CK on its roster. Yet the players are saying that it's not right for another entity, the president, to intervene and call for teams to fire players. That's double think

Again, boost, it seems your entire argument hinges on the idea that CK was somehow 'punished' by a team for his actions. He wasn't. He chose to become a free agent and test his value on the open market. And when he found that the market didn't want him, his average level of play, his inability to perform in a pro-style offense, and the media headaches that he brings with him.......then folks cried "racist conspiracy!"

[BananaStand]

Did you know that Dr Seuss books are racist now?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...as-racist.html

But only if a white person is reading them

[BananaStand]

Dr. Suess update....

LIBRARY BITCH BUSTED!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/29...at-in-hat.html



I really hope we start to see more of these hypocrisies exposed.

[wufwugy]

Cultural gaslighting is crazy stuff.

[Savy]

Did you know that Dr Seuss books are racist now?

Teh funny thing is they only got recognition because someone important said so. They are basically utter shit. So it isn't that they are racist (which they may be) it's just they are shit.

[wufwugy]

[BananaStand]

If you wear shoes....you're a racist.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/06...niversity.html

[OngBonga]

If you wear shoes....you're a racist.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/06...niversity.html

Um not really. I think it's closer to... if you hang a shoelace that looks like a noose from a black person's door, it might be inccorectly perceived as racist.

This is a non-story that shouldn't even make the local papers, let alone make it across the Atlantic for my digestion.

[wufwugy]

Looks like indictments into the Clinton cartel may come sooner than I expected. The Democrat-media complex is finally catching on to what the whispers from Trump insiders have been saying for months: that Mueller has been investigating the cartel under the guise of investigating the fabricated Trump stuff. Now that some things have come to light about the Clinton cartel and Mueller looking into them, the Democrat-media complex has swiftly turned on a dime regarding Mueller, from loving him to calling for his resignation.

[a500lbgorilla]

Wuf, I'll bet Mueller is hot on the heels of Manafort well over Clinton for claim over your avatar.

You game?

[wufwugy]

I also think the announced indictment could be Manafort. Also could be Comey or a Podesta. Also could be nothing. There are solid reasons to believe any of these.

I don't know what's going on. The "official story" does not make sense. It isn't going to be the case that the day after Trump interviews a man for FBI position, Trump's AG hires him to go after Trump.

[wufwugy]

It should be noted that indicting Manafort would not necessarily mean that Mueller is going after Trump. Manafort's relevant ties to this are not with Trump.

[CoccoBill]

Looks like indictments into the Clinton cartel may come sooner than I expected. The Democrat-media complex is finally catching on to what the whispers from Trump insiders have been saying for months: that Mueller has been investigating the cartel under the guise of investigating the fabricated Trump stuff. Now that some things have come to light about the Clinton cartel and Mueller looking into them, the Democrat-media complex has swiftly turned on a dime regarding Mueller, from loving him to calling for his resignation.

Case study on how orange spectacles may impair vision.

[wufwugy]

Case study on how orange spectacles may impair vision.

(1) Yep. I have to frequently bed down my enthusiasm that justice might prevail.

(2) Even so, so far we are on track: http://archive.is/SasEd

[BananaStand]

I kinda took my finger off the pulse for a while, but checked back in when I saw this stuff on Manafort.

Help me catch up now, and tell me if I have this right...

1) Manafort is going down for laundering money he made as a pro-Putin political consultant in Ukraine, and thus far is not charged with any crime related to the Trump campaign.

2) A low low low low low level staffer in the Trump campaign (Popadopolous) may have had some low low low low low level Russian contacts who claimed to have "dirt" on Hillary. They were offering this dirt in order to leverage a meeting with Trump. Trump declined. He never made any contacts, he never went to a meeting, and he certainly didn't accept any Russian-sourced dirt on the opposition

3) At the same time, the Hillary campaign went out and actually PAID for Russian-sourced dirt on the opposition.

4) Donna Brazille confirms what we all pretty much know by now, and that is that Hillary colluded with the DNC to box-out Bernie.

5) And the democrats still think that Trump is not legitimately in office....cuz Russia and cuz collusion.

Do I have that about right?

If anyone thinks that Trump doesn't skate to a re-election win in 2020, then I want you to share whatever you're smoking with me.

[CoccoBill]

1) That's my understanding.
2) If you take out at least most of the "lows", yeah. Obviously his part in the campaign is now downplayed and he's being distanced from Trump.
3) If by "actually PAID for Russian-sourced" you mean paid a brit to investigate, and by "dirt" you mean evidence of foul play during the campaign, yes.
4) Apparently Hillary bailed the DNC from their financial debt and the allegation is that she expected the nomination as payment. All of this was known already at the time and criticized by Bernie's supporters, nothing really new from Brazile. Also the timeline of the events is a bit muddy, most of this likely happened after her nomination was a done deal anyway.
5) Yeah. Let's just wait for Mueller to finish his job.

[BananaStand]

1) That's my understanding.

2) If you take out at least most of the "lows", yeah. Obviously his part in the campaign is now downplayed and he's being distanced from Trump.

Well, how not-low could he really have been? He graduated college in 2009 and he still had "Model UN" listed as an accomplishment on his resume.

3) If by "actually PAID for Russian-sourced" you mean paid a brit to investigate,

I feel like you're leaving out a lot of details here....

and by "dirt" you mean evidence of foul play during the campaign, yes.

What foul play? By whom? And no that's not what I meant by "dirt". I was referring to russian-sourced garbage about Trump being a pee-freak.

4) Apparently Hillary bailed the DNC from their financial debt and the allegation is that she expected the nomination as payment. All of this was known already at the time and criticized by Bernie's supporters, nothing really new from Brazile. Also the timeline of the events is a bit muddy, most of this likely happened after her nomination was a done deal anyway.

So.....just because the purpose of the collusion was to bring about a result that was likely to happen anyway, then the collusion is ok? Is that what you're saying?

5) Yeah. Let's just wait for Mueller to finish his job.

I don't think Mueller is there to finish a job. I think he's there to create one. And thus far, he hasn't been able to. The holy grail of this investigation, for the dems at least, is to indict Trump for colluding with a foreign government to influence an election. Specifically, they have to tie the Podesta hack directly to Trump. We've waited over a year now, through an age of unprecedented government leaks, and not a shred of information to that effect has surfaced.

Question: What will it take for the dems to say "well shit, I guess he won fair and square"

As long as that questions remains unanswered...Mueller's job is never finished

[wufwugy]

You can tell what the media-Democrat conglomerate believes Mueller is doing based on how they react. The script has changed significantly. I don't know what Trump's employee Mueller will ultimately overturn, but the media-Democrat conglomerate is acting scared.

[BananaStand]

Looks like someone is calling attention to the deplorable hypocrisy of Trump tweet's asking for the death penalty for the NYC truck-rampage terrorist. After all, Trump wasn't calling for the death penalty when a white american man killed 5 dozen people in Las Vegas.

That's obvious undeniable racism right? How can Trump demand the execution of muslim who killed 8, but not the execution of a white man who killed 58?

I wonder if it matters to the democrats if the white man is already dead? Doesn't seem so. Apparently they think Trump should be calling for his execution anyway.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...s-shooter.html

[Poopadoop]

It's hard to argue from hypotheticals, but I'm guessing that if the Vegas shooter were alive and still white, Trump still wouldn't be ranting about giving him the death penalty. Just a guess.

Overall though, certainly hard to pin Trump to any racist leanings. Oh wait, actually it is really easy as long as you don't run out of fingers to count the times on.

[BananaStand]

It's hard to argue from hypotheticals, but I'm guessing that if the Vegas shooter were alive and still white, Trump still wouldn't be ranting about giving him the death penalty. Just a guess.

Utter nonsense.

Overall though, certainly hard to pin Trump to any racist leanings. Oh wait, actually it is really easy as long as you don't run out of fingers to count the times on.

That depends on what your definition of "racist leanings" is.

Are we sticking to the traditional, fact-based, dictionary definition of racism? Or are we using the current 2017 standard where I was called an oppressor because my fair-skinned, blond-haired daughter dressed up as Elsa for Halloween and promoted a stereotypical white standard of beauty?

Huge difference.

[Poopadoop]

The fact that some people are hysterical SJWs doesn't change any of the things Trump has said (or failed to say). We all know what they are.

I also find your anecdote somewhat dubious...

[BananaStand]

I also find your anecdote somewhat dubious...

My kid was Elsa for Halloween. That day I read more than one article online about 'racist' halloween costumes. Elsa was prominently mentioned. Apparently it's a white privilege to be able to dress up as a white person.

[wufwugy]

Overall though, certainly hard to pin Trump to any racist leanings. Oh wait, actually it is really easy as long as you don't run out of fingers to count the times on.

Find one example.

[Poopadoop]

Find one example.

lol, there's like more than a dozen.

Let's start with his reluctance to disavow David Duke's support and go from there.

[Poopadoop]

My kid was Elsa for Halloween. That day I read more than one article online about 'racist' halloween costumes. Elsa was prominently mentioned. Apparently it's a white privilege to be able to dress up as a white person.

So? It's not like it's hard to find someone spewing drivel on the internet. Don't see what that has to do with Trump being a racist, unless you argument is that's not as bad as being a hysterical SJW

[wufwugy]

Thank you for bringing that up. Claiming that you don't know a guy (that is considered a racist) or what he is up to so you don't won't opine or disavow is not racism.

Find me an actual example of racism.

Here's the trick, and the reason I am asking you: I already know the answer. You can't find Trump saying a racist thing. This is a media lie that I once believed. I don't like believing lies. I'm sure you don't either.

[Poopadoop]

Thank you for bringing that up. Claiming that you don't know a guy (that is considered a racist) or what he is up to so you don't won't opine or disavow is not racism.

Find me an actual example of racism.

Here's the trick, and the reason I am asking you: I already know the answer. You can't find Trump saying a racist thing. This is a media lie that I once believed. I don't like believing lies. I'm sure you don't either.

You're splitting hairs. Everyone in the US knows who David Duke is unless they live in a cave in the wilderness. It's like saying you don't know who OJ is. Pretending you don't know Duke so you don't have to disavow him is tacitly condoning him and what he stands for.

He's had a similar problem disavowing Nazis and the KKK.

[wufwugy]

The question isn't what he intended to do. It's whether he did something racist. That, and the other things you alluded to, are not racist statements or actions.

I don't know how to read minds. I don't know what he thought. What I can meaningfully comment on is that from a strategic perspective, public disavowals of a particular group (even when it's the Nazis) is often a bad idea. Given that I have seen Trump play a particular strategy where it is very likely that he knows this, it makes sense that he would not opt to disavow any group publicly. I could go more into this strategy if you want (and explain the counterintuitive claim that even disavowing Nazis can easily backfire). Trump didn't do so hot on this when it was public, but it is pretty apparent that he at least knows the game and tries to play according to a strategy that includes not making public disavowals of people/groups when prompted by somebody else.

[Poopadoop]

You're choosing to argue it's all just a part of his 3D chess strategy but it's the same lame argument you use to defend a lot of his bad behavior, i.e., that the end justifies the means, and that he somehow knows what the end will be before he gets there.

But the morality of the situation is clear - if a white supremacist leader endorses you and you don't disavow them immediately then you're tacitly condoning their ethos. If that doesn't make you a racist it certainly makes you just as bad as one.

But if you want a more concrete example, then there's Trump referring to the hispanic beauty contest winner as 'Ms. Housekeeping'.

[OngBonga]

So? It's not like it's hard to find someone spewing drivel on the internet. Don't see what that has to do with Trump being a racist, unless you argument is that's not as bad as being a hysterical SJW

Hysterical SJWs are the most prejudiced people in the public realm today. Apparently I should feel bad because I'm a white hetrosexual male, and have no problem with being such. Anyone who says it's not ok to be white is racist.

But if you want a more concrete example, then there's Trump referring to the hispanic beauty contest winner as 'Ms. Housekeeping'.

Really? That's the best you can do? Is this on the same level as being told that being white is not ok?

From what I can gather, he was being sexist, not racist. And Mrs Clinton chimed in by saying he was being disrespectful to women. This coming from a woman who tried to silence women who made accusations against her husband.

Trump is very much outspoken. That is not the same as holding racist views, such as "it's not ok to be a certain colour".

[Poopadoop]

Hysterical SJWs are the most prejudiced people in the public realm today. Apparently I should feel bad because I'm a white hetrosexual male, and have no problem with being such. Anyone who says it's not ok to be white is racist.

They are not only a big part of the problem today, but even worse they don't realise they are part of the problem, but think they are part of the solution.

Really? That's the best you can do? Is this on the same level as being told that being white is not ok?

No, it's just an example. There's plenty of others. Is the fact that he isn't shaving his head and shouting 'white power' mean to you he isn't racist, or just not a bad enough racist that we should be bothered by it?

Is this on the same level as being told that being white is not ok?

Pretty much. It's implying that being a hispanic womans means your role in American society is to clean up after others. If a politician here referred to an Indian gentleman as "Mr. Petrol Station", would you be ok with that too?

And would you appreciate this kind of characterisation if it were applied to white people, and by extension, to you? Obviously not, since you're clearly bothered by SJWs giving you shit for being white male hetero.

From what I can gather, he was being sexist, not racist.

Seems like a combination of both to me.

And Mrs Clinton chimed in by saying he was being disrespectful to women. This coming from a woman who tried to silence women who made accusations against her husband.

ya well I don't set my moral compass to HRC, so what she says or does isn't relevant here. The argument is about Trump, not anyone else.

Trump is very much outspoken. That is not the same as holding racist views, such as "it's not ok to be a certain colour".

Again, saying he's not as bad as a hysterical SJW is a weak argument. He should judged on his own behavior, not others'.

Also, if he were a bit more outspoken about being in favour of equality and fair treatment for everyone it would be better than a lot of the shit he spews. Just sayin'.

[wufwugy]

From what I can gather, he was being sexist, not racist.

It's almost like there is no rigor when it comes to accusing Trump of something.

[Poopadoop]

If a politician here referred to an Indian gentleman as "Mr. Petrol Station"...

This example shows why referring to that woman as Ms. Housekeeping is more racist than sexist. Petrol station attendants in the UK (or at least the part where I live) are predominantly male Indian. If a white female politician made this comment the overwhelming feeling would be it's a racist comment; hardly anyone would say it's a sexist one.

You can counter with some argument that its not actually racist but relates to ethnicity independent of race, because Indian and hispanic aren't technically races, but whatever. It's obnoxious and offensive either way.

My experience is that people who are willing to make these kinds of comments in public aren't paragons of tolerance in private either.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's the essence of entitlement to think you deserve something that other people don't deserve.

I hope no one is surprised to find out that politicians are entitled.

[wufwugy]

A glaring problem with the claim that these kinds of statements are racist is that not nearly enough information is had that would be required to determine if the accusations are probably racist.

The statements are not in themselves racist. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why somebody would say something that correlates with a race yet is not motivated by the race. Jumping to conclusions and assuming the reason comes from racist intent, well, who does that make the racist?

[MadMojoMonkey]

who does that make the racist?

It doesn't make person A a racist to assume Person B is a racist, unless person A thinks person B is a racist on the basis of person B's race.

Asserting Trump is racist based on the umpteenth seemingly-maybe-probably-at-least-a-bit-racist-but-also-maybe-just-tactless-elitism thing the President has said is not racist.

[wufwugy]

I agree that what people define as racist has gotten very far from what is actually racist.

In addition, I question racism-accusations since they have gotten so out of hand in popular culture that it seems they have molded into its own kind of racism.

[wufwugy]

I don't know if an overabundance of racism-accusations represents racism itself, but sometimes I wonder. To get to that point, a person has to kinda think like "blacks are like this, whites are like this, latinos are like this....", and the moment somebody does something that doesn't confirm to that person's views on race, it's racism. That looks to me like it could be a type of racism in itself.

[OngBonga]

It's almost like there is no rigor when it comes to accusing Trump of something.

"Miss Househeeping" kind of assumes a stereotypical gender role for a not-so-bright woman. That's what I take from that comment. Clearly that has a tone of casual sexism. Not that I have a problem with it, so it's not really an "accusation", more an observation.

I don't really see how it relates to race. I suppose in USA Hispanic people are more likely to work as a housekeeper, so I can see an element of casual racism, but not nearly enough to cry about. Imagine if Winston Churchill were still alive today. He was savage when he insulted people. When accused of being drunk by a lady, he replies "You are ugly, but in the morning I'll be sober". And this guy is widely considered our greatest ever leader.

No, it's just an example. There's plenty of others. Is the fact that he isn't shaving his head and shouting 'white power' mean to you he isn't racist, or just not a bad enough racist that we should be bothered by it?

Plenty of other cases of marginal complaints that require one to be easily offended in order to take offence. Making such a comment in an attempt to insult a lady one holds in contempt is a million miles away from white power. This is why the charge of racism has become diluted. Actual racists who have views of superiority and people who say mean things are being clumped together. They are not the same kind of people.

Pretty much. It's implying that being a hispanic womans means your role in American society is to clean up after others. If a politician here referred to an Indian gentleman as "Mr. Petrol Station", would you be ok with that too?

I would consider it a little inappropriate, however it's a great deal better than calling him a Paki. And Prince Philip is a bugger for this... he's regularly saying mildly racist things that made most people scream "you can't say that". Is he an actual racist? I dunno, but I'm not going to say he is based on sloppy language and childlike humour.

Again, saying he's not as bad as a hysterical SJW is a weak argument. He should judged on his own behavior, not others'.

His behaviour is not as bad as screeching SJW's. I haven't seen Trump say that it's not ok to be any particular colour. All I've seen are Prince Philip style comments that really do not deserve the hysteria they attract.

Also, if he were a bit more outspoken about being in favour of equality and fair treatment for everyone it would be better than a lot of the shit he spews. Just sayin'.

Well yeah. Way to state the obvious. Also, if he did this and that instead of this and that he'd be better. Same can be said for every single person on the planet, including every leader on the planet. Why aren't you saying the same about May? Because she doesn't say stupid things that sensetive people consider to be outrageous? She's still an arse who couldn't give a fuck about equality and fair treatment. That's the nature of leaders, Trump is nothing special there.

Trump says stupid shit sometimes. I don't give a fuck, to be quite honest. I still think the world dodged a bullet by voting him in instead of Hillary, so I'm still cutting him some slack.

[BananaStand]

Also, if he were a bit more outspoken about being in favour of equality and fair treatment for everyone it would be better than a lot of the shit he spews. Just sayin'.

Maybe he is and you just don't know it.

When you see Trump on the news, most times, you're only seeing a tiny fraction of a much longer dialogue.

You do realize that there is another party (usually with a liberal agenda) deciding which fractions of the dialogue you see, and which you don't. Right?

[wufwugy]

^^That's true.

All popular press (all of it) only reports from one perspective. If you go to pro-Trump circles, you find people who think he is one of the most compassionate people in the country and they can back it up with evidence. It's just not evidence the popular press has ever mentioned.

[wufwugy]

I like how Fake News spent all day yesterday ridiculing Trump for stupidly dumping an ENTIRE BOX of food in the Koi pond, what a stupid loser. And then today corrections were made at the bottom of their articles that nobody reads, because people saw what actually happened: Shinzo Abe dumped his entire box just before Trump did.

It's to the point that if the popular press reports on something, believing the exact opposite will probably result in the truth more often than not.

[wufwugy]

Archive of a total hit piece.

http://archive.is/nNwJR

what actually happened:

https://i.imgur.com/NlByMeP.gifv

[Poopadoop]

"Miss Househeeping" kind of assumes a stereotypical gender role for a not-so-bright woman.

Then you've never been to America. It seems like almost every cleaning lady is hispanic, every porter or doorman is black. Not that it's any better here.

And if what you say is correct about not-so-bright, there's a racist overtone suggesting hispanics are dumb.

I don't really see how it relates to race. I suppose in USA Hispanic people are more likely to work as a housekeeper, so I can see an element of casual racism, but not nearly enough to cry about. Imagine if Winston Churchill were still alive today. He was savage when he insulted people. When accused of being drunk by a lady, he replies "You are ugly, but in the morning I'll be sober". And this guy is widely considered our greatest ever leader.

Different times, different values. And I'm pretty sure his status is based pretty much entirely on his ability to inspire people in troubled times and lead the country against an evil power; it's got nothing to do with the fact he insulted a woman's appearance, or strongly believed in Empire, or was a manic-depressive.

Plenty of other cases of marginal complaints that require one to be easily offended in order to take offence. Making such a comment in an attempt to insult a lady one holds in contempt is a million miles away from white power. This is why the charge of racism has become diluted. Actual racists who have views of superiority and people who say mean things are being clumped together. They are not the same kind of people.

I agree it's way down the rankings on offensiveness. But, the problem isn't that such comments are on an equal basis with shouting white power, the problem is they shouldn't be in one's repertoire at all, particularly if they want to stand at the head of a country.

I would consider it a little inappropriate, however it's a great deal better than calling him a Paki. And Prince Philip is a bugger for this... he's regularly saying mildly racist things that made most people scream "you can't say that". Is he an actual racist? I dunno, but I'm not going to say he is based on sloppy language and childlike humour.

Ya, but Prince Philip is about 130 years old. You might as well try to get your grandpa to stop saying racist things. Back in his day, being racist was the standard. He's also not in any real position of authority and so it's more like he's a symbol of a bygone age mixed in with a lack of self-control than he is a symbol of what our country is today.

[BananaStand]

Ya, but Prince Philip is about 130 years old. You might as well try to get your grandpa to stop saying racist things. Back in his day, being racist was the standard.

How old do you think Trump is?

Trump's parents lived most of their adult lives with all-white baseball, and it was considered FINE. Trump was already 2 years old before black people were allowed to be pro athletes. He was 17 before black people were allowed to drink from the same water fountain as white people. So if grown-up Trump hangs on to a few cantankerous habits, I wouldn't exactly call that a psychological anomaly.

Moreover, he became a massive success, generated unfathomable wealth, and successfully won a presidential campaign against the most "sure-bet" candidate I've seen in my lifetime. And he did all this WHILE he still had those habits. So what logical motivation would Trump have to change?

[Poopadoop]

How old do you think Trump is?

Trump's parents lived most of their adult lives with all-white baseball, and it was considered FINE. Trump was already 2 years old before black people were allowed to be pro athletes. He was 17 before black people were allowed to drink from the same water fountain as white people. So if grown-up Trump hangs on to a few cantankerous habits, I wouldn't exactly call that a psychological anomaly.

Moreover, he became a massive success, generated unfathomable wealth, and successfully won a presidential campaign against the most "sure-bet" candidate I've seen in my lifetime. And he did all this WHILE he still had those habits. So what logical motivation would Trump have to change?

You're right, if you live in a country where those kinds of things are acceptable to enough people that you can win an election then you have no motivation to change.

[wufwugy]

Trump's parents lived most of their adult lives with all-white baseball, and it was considered FINE. Trump was already 2 years old before black people were allowed to be pro athletes. He was 17 before black people were allowed to drink from the same water fountain as white people. So if grown-up Trump hangs on to a few cantankerous habits, I wouldn't exactly call that a psychological anomaly.

Sorry dude, this is a big argument loser, and Mademoiselle Poopadoop noticed.

If you think Trump harbors some racist or sexist sentiments, I'd recommend looking harder. The evidence that he harbors those sentiments is weak as shit and the evidence that he doesn't is very, very strong. But arguing that if he doesn't hold the sentiments, it's okay, is a big loser of an argument and makes us all look bad as well as it doesn't even correctly represent what his supporters actually think. It ISN'T that Trump supporters are okay with some small racism/sexism, but that Trump supporters LOATHE racism and sexism and truly believe Trump does too.

[BananaStand]

Sorry dude, this is a big argument loser, and Mademoiselle Poopadoop noticed.

If you think Trump harbors some racist or sexist sentiments, I'd recommend looking harder. The evidence that he harbors those sentiments is weak as shit and the evidence that he doesn't is very, very strong. But arguing that if he doesn't hold the sentiments, it's okay, is a big loser of an argument and makes us all look bad as well as it doesn't even correctly represent what his supporters actually think. It ISN'T that Trump supporters are okay with some small racism/sexism, but that Trump supporters LOATHE racism and sexism and truly believe Trump does too.

I think you meant "does" not "doesn't" on the bolded.

You've taken an extreme position wuf, and as such, it's pretty much indefensible.

No one is saying that "Trump is just kinda racist...so it's not a big deal"

What I am saying is that Trump, throughout his life, certainly learned some tendencies that in 2017 are considered offensive by some people/groups. Is it racism/sexism? Personally, I don't think so. Making jokes that incorporate stereotypes or cliches isn't what I consider racist. it's insensitive. It's possibly vulgar. But not racist/sexist.

Other people disagree.

These sentiments exist within Trump. Denying that, wuf, is positively silly. the question is whether or not they represent actual hatred towards an ethnicity, or represent a sincere belief in the inferiority/superiority of certain races. I don't see that. I see an old man, whose life experiences have accumulated both a vulgar sense of humor, and an attitude of "I know I'm not really racist, so I really don't give a fuck if your'e offended at some off-color jokes"

[Poopadoop]

Sorry dude, this is a big argument loser, and Mademoiselle Poopadoop noticed.

If you think Trump harbors some racist or sexist sentiments, I'd recommend looking harder. The evidence that he harbors those sentiments is weak as shit and the evidence that he doesn't is very, very strong. But arguing that if he doesn't hold the sentiments, it's okay, is a big loser of an argument and makes us all look bad as well as it doesn't even correctly represent what his supporters actually think. It ISN'T that Trump supporters are okay with some small racism/sexism, but that Trump supporters LOATHE racism and sexism and truly believe Trump does too.

Even Banana can see you're out on a limb here.

I'd like to see some of this 'very very strong' evidence that Trump holds equality among the races (or sexes for that matter) in high regard. And not just Hannity said so kind of evidence, but actually something tangible he's said or done. And by 'tangible' I don't mean hiring a jewish person to do his taxes or tipping a black waiter.

[Poopadoop]

You do realize that there is another party (usually with a liberal agenda) deciding which fractions of the dialogue you see, and which you don't. Right?

Well he's been interviewed by Fox news about 20 times now, so most of those interviews I assume aren't being edited with a liberal bias. Lou Dobbs basically sucked his cock for an hour.

[wufwugy]

These sentiments exist within Trump. Denying that, wuf, is positively silly.

Where are the examples?

[wufwugy]

I'd like to see some of this 'very very strong' evidence that Trump holds equality among the races (or sexes for that matter) in high regard. And not just Hannity said so kind of evidence, but actually something tangible he's said or done. And by 'tangible' I don't mean hiring a jewish person to do his taxes or tipping a black waiter.

He was quite seriously considered among the most equality-minded famous people in the entire country until he ran for president. His campaign broke the "glass ceiling" for women. Every claim of him being racist or sexist so far holds no water. He virtually never talks in terms of race; it's his media agenda-driven antagonists who can't get race out of their heads and blame him of the very thing they do (standard). Even when the opportunity arises to discuss race, he rarely ever does it.

[MadMojoMonkey]

To get to that point, a person has to kinda think like "blacks are like this, whites are like this, latinos are like this....",

A person who thinks like that is a racist, wuf. It's the definition of racism to assign character traits to someone based on their race.

This reads like someone struggling to justify harboring racist thoughts as somehow a morally upright position.

and the moment somebody does something that doesn't confirm to that person's views on race, it's racism.

The person holding expectations of someone's behavior or personality on the basis of race is the racist. Whether they notice any inconsistency in their views is a totally different matter.

That looks to me like it could be a type of racism in itself.

You're much smarter than this.

Argumentative idiots who are self-righteous and looking for a target's buttons to push are not always racists. I mean, sure they could be, but not based on them being self-righteous idiots.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Judging someone for the choices they make is the opposite of judging someone you know nothing about, and the reason racism is illegal and hating is not.

[Poopadoop]

He was quite seriously considered among the most equality-minded famous people in the entire country until he ran for president. His campaign broke the "glass ceiling" for women. Every claim of him being racist or sexist so far holds no water. He virtually never talks in terms of race; it's his media agenda-driven antagonists who can't get race out of their heads and blame him of the very thing they do (standard). Even when the opportunity arises to discuss race, he rarely ever does it.

None of this is tangible evidence. "Considered among the most equality-minded.." by whom? And why? What has he actually said or done to earn this reputation?

"His campaign broke the glass ceiling for women" ? Really? How? Because KAC was his campaign advisor or whatever? Or wow that's a joke right?

The rest of what you're saying is just claiming his opponents are lying when they report what he says, or wrongly interpreting it.

[CoccoBill]

At this point it might make sense to clearly define racism. While there undeniably are varying "degrees" of racism, or rather more or less morally questionable stances, it does seem like some are thinking anything south of KKK = not racist. Personally Ithink MMM put it well, racism is a racial bias, treating someone differently just based on their race/ethnicity. These biases might be negative or positive, but they're still racism.

I'd also make a clear distinction between verifiable statistics and treating someone according to them. Let's say statistics clearly indicate (I have no idea if they do) that asian-americans excel in maths compared to some other groups. If that is the case, saying it out loud is a fact, not racism. However, treating an individual based on this statistical fact, whether preferentially or discriminately, is racism.

[BananaStand]

Ithink MMM put it well, racism is a racial bias, treating someone differently just based on their race/ethnicity. These biases might be negative or positive, but they're still racism.

When I'm president, I'm going to make it a law that all doors have to be automatic sliders, like the starship enterprise. I am so god damn fucking sick of holding doors for people, it's not even funny.

Until that happens (Vote Banana in 2032), I'm stuck with this ridiculous system we have in this country. Apparently people believe that opening a door more than once in a span of ten seconds makes babies get AIDS or something. But I'm fighting back....if you're more than 2 seconds away from the door, my policy is "fuck you, your arms work, I've got shit to do"

Except when it's a black person.

I give black people a few extra seconds, because I don't wanna let the door shut and have that person think I'm a racist.

Is that racist?