The Guns Of Hate
Comments
-
@Bill_Coley wrote
I've offered a prime example of the president's racism three times in our current exchange. The fact that you STILL have not directly engaged that example is prima facie evidence of its strength. If you were able to disarm it with facts, evidence, and/or logic, you would have by now. But you haven't... because you can't.
Here's the argument in simple format:
- The president said those congress should go back to the countries from which they came - countries "whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world" - then come back and show us how to fix the problems of our nation.
Now, what does the content of the president's comment mentioned in your argument have to do with racism ??? Are countries races? Are governments of countries races, so that criticizing them is racism ???
- Of the four congresswomen the president tweeted about, was not born in the U.S. which means she could possibly "go back" to the country from which she came. Yet the president tweeted that of them should go back to the countries from which they came.
What does this have to do with racism ??? See above ....
Does your belief that President Trump's critics who call him a white supremacist should be "prosecuted for defamation of character" because there is no evidence to support their claims ALSO mean you believe President Trump should be prosecuted (after he leaves office, of course) for defamation of character for his "low IQ" accusations leveled, also without evidence, against Vice President Joe Biden, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and TV host Mika Brzezinski?
No it does NOT mean such .... as one is "a loony tunes" accusation whereas the other comments on such ridiculous accusations which accusations could give the impression of a relatively "low IQ" (or else, would appear to have been made with evil intent, something worse)...
-
That's what I've been trying to say but Bill is part of the Rabid Left that lives in an alternate universe.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
Now, what does the content of the president's comment mentioned in your argument have to do with racism ??? Are countries races? Are governments of countries races, so that criticizing them is racism ???
The point of my example is in the question that I have posed to @reformed four previous times, each time without his response: On what basis did the president conclude that Reps. Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, and Pressley - all American-born - were from countries other than the United States? Answer THAT question directly and without evasion, Wolfgang, and perhaps we'll make progress.
No it does NOT mean such .... as one is "a loony tunes" accusation whereas the other comments on such ridiculous accusations which accusations could give the impression of a relatively "low IQ" (or else, would appear to have been made with evil intent, something worse)...
The president didn't say the targets of his criticisms "[gave] the impression of a relatively 'low IQ' (or else, would appear to have been made with evil intent, something worse)." He said they WERE "low IQ." IQ is a number. The president gave no numbers. He gave proof of his claim. He certainly gave no more proof of his claim than his critics have given of his racist and white supremacist inclinations.
While I have your attention, Wolfgang, there are some questions I've posed to you in this thread that you have yet to address. Here they are:
From THIS POST:
@Wolfgang posted:
While the published official government statistics are interpreted by top politicians of established political parties in power as "criminal offences are decreasing", the same statistics are interpreted by others with credentials in the field with a completely different outcome.
- Let's not discuss how OTHERS interpret the data, Wolfgang. Let's discuss how YOU AND I interpret the data. Please provide links to that data, then you and I can discuss what they say about the trajectory of Germany's level of (gun) violence vis a vis the U.S.'s.
- As for the cause and effect section of your reply, I see nothing in it that engages the specifics of my contention that regulating the killing efficiency of firearms has the potential of reducing the number of people killed by firearms. Please address that specific assertion.
And from THIS POST:
- What is the nature of the "just about anything" non-whites can "call... and get away with it and are even applauded"? You call that description an "example," but I have no idea what you have in mind.
- Please offer a specific example of a "more or less matter of fact comment about a non-white" that a white person made which resulted in his or her being "called a racist and put down by the all so politically correct propaganda media." (And while you're at it, please tell how a "more or less matter of fact comment" differs, if at all, from a "matter of fact comment.")
You and I are predictably critical when those with whom we engage in these threads refuse to address directly the questions we pose to them. In these two cases, you have not engaged my questions at all. Were the roles reversed, I'm sure you'd express criticism of my failure to address your questions. So, I now ask them again.
@reformed posted:
That's what I've been trying to say but Bill is part of the Rabid Left that lives in an alternate universe.
For the fifth time, I ask for your direct and non-evasive response to my question: On what basis did the president conclude that Reps. Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, and Pressley - all American-born - were from countries other than the United States?
And for the sixth time. I ask for your direct and non-evasive response to this question: Does your belief that President Trump's critics who call him a white supremacist should be "prosecuted for defamation of character" because there is no evidence to support their claims ALSO mean you believe President Trump should be prosecuted (after he leaves office, of course) for defamation of character for his "low IQ" accusations leveled, also without evidence, against Vice President Joe Biden, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and TV host Mika Brzezinski?
-
The point of my example is in the question that I have posed to @reformed four previous times, each time without his response: On what basis did the president conclude that Reps. Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, and Pressley - allAmerican-born - were from countries other than the United States? Answer THAT question directly and without evasion, Wolfgang, and perhaps we'll make progress.
Sorry ... since when does "American born" constitute a race or racial background? Seems rather obvious that there have been people of various races/racial backgrounds born on USA soil and are thus "American born", but that does not define their race. Thus, accusations of racism against "American born" are non-sense. Your example does not point out anyhing with the topic of race .. and thus it is rather clear to me that one could not accuse someone of having made racist remarks etc ...
As for your further questions, I am not interested in investing much time in examining in detail racism / non-white / white media propaganda, neither in Germany nor USA, especially so when a simple look already provides rather plain and clear understanding for me.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
Sorry ... since when does "American born" constitute a race or racial background? Seems rather obvious that there have been people of various races/racial backgrounds born on USA soil and are thus "American born", but that does not define their race. Thus, accusations of racism against "American born" are non-sense. Your example does not point out anyhing with the topic of race .. and thus it is rather clear to me that one could not accuse someone of having made racist remarks etc ...
I appreciate that you took time to write words in response to my question, Wolfgang. I do wish, however, that you had actually answered the question I asked rather than merely critiqued it.
The significance of the question is that the president somehow decided three American-born members of Congress were born in other countries. On what basis did he conclude they were foreign-born? Was it their policy views? Highly doubtful.
- Bernie Sanders has many similar policy views, yet the president has never told him to go back to the country he came from.
- Hillary Clinton had several policy differences with Mr Trump. He criticized her a great deal, but never suggested she should go back to the country she came from.
- Elizabeth Warren he calls "Pocahontas" - an ethnic slur - but he never says she should go back to her home country.
But those three female members of Congress the president told to go back where they came from, to their nations of corrupted governments. Why those three? On what basis did he even have the thought that they were from any nation other than the U.S.? It almost surely wasn't their policy views. (cf. Sanders, Clinton, and Warren) And it almost surely wasn't their gender. (cf. Clinton and Warren) Was it their religion? Goodness, I can't find online information about Rep. Pressley's faith, and the other two, who are Muslims, are among the 3.5 million Muslims living in the United States, so we'd hope it wasn't that.
With that as additional background, I ask you yet again, Wolfgang (and this time, PLEASE answer directly, without further evasion): On what basis did the president conclude that Reps. Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, and Pressley - allAmerican-born - were from countries other than the United States?
As for your further questions, I am not interested in investing much time in examining in detail racism / non-white / white media propaganda, neither in Germany nor USA, especially so when a simple look already provides rather plain and clear understanding for me.
Were our roles reversed - had I made assertions of fact that I wasn't willing to back up - I bet you would respond in a manner similar to mine: To me, the fact that you're willing to make statements, but aren't willing to back them up (on the magical grounds that their truth is "rather plain and clear" to you, so apparently you don't have to back them up to anyone else) is clear evidence that you can't back up your statements. If proof of your claims existed, you'd share it. But since such proof doesn't exist, the best you can do is to assert that your claims are true to you. Such an approach does nothing to prove your points, but it does stop discussions in their tracks. It's basically impossible to contend with an argument that says, "This is true because I say it's true, whether it's ACTUALLY true or not."
-
@Bill_Coley wrote
With that as additional background, I ask you yet again, Wolfgang (and this time, PLEASE answer directly, without further evasion): On what basis did the president conclude that Reps. Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, and Pressley - allAmerican-born - were from countries other than the United States?
I would think he did so, by means of a figure of speech ... meaning that their ancestors came from countries other than the USA?
The figure of speech I have in mind is the same that is used in Scripture many times, when someone is said to be "the son" of someone, when in a literal sense he is really not the son (that is, the immediate and direct first generation descendant) but a descendant of the line of that person said to be his father. CP. - as a prime example - Jesus ... he was of course NOT in a literal sense the son of David, nor the son of Abraham ... but he was of the line of, his ancestors were David and Abraham.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
I would think he did so, by means of a figure of speech ... meaning that their ancestors came from countries other than the USA?
The figure of speech I have in mind is the same that is used in Scripture many times....
Where in the president's tweeted reference to those three Congresswomen do you find ANY figure of speech, let alone one comparable to "the son of someone"? Here again is the tweet....
He calls them "'Progressive' Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world." That's not a "daughters of" reference. He doesn't say their ancestors originally came from other countries. He says those "Congresswomen...came from countries...." (BTW, other than Native Americans, ALL Americans' ancestors originally came from other countries!)
If you were to move to the U.S. and I were to introduce you to others by saying, "Wolfgang originally came from Germany," how many people would think I was saying your ancestors, not you yourself, came from Germany? Basically none, I think. (I hope my assumption about your birthplace is correct!)
You have often called CD posters to read sentences first for their plainest and most obvious meaning. Isn't the simplest, most obvious meaning of those words that the president believes those Congresswomen came from countries other than the United States?
-
Where in the president's tweeted reference to those three Congresswomen do you find ANY figure of speech, let alone one comparable to "the son of someone"? Here again is the tweet....
...
He calls them "'Progressive' Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world.
Your bold print provides what you asked for ..... they themselves did not originally come from those countries, their ancestors did.
If you were to move to the U.S. and I were to introduce you to others by saying, "Wolfgang originally came from Germany," how many people would think I was saying your ancestors, not you yourself, came from Germany? Basically none, I think. (I hope my assumption about your birthplace is correct!)
Context provides correct meaning ....
I have had USA born folks tell me, "We came from Ireland ..." or "We came from Germany ..." are you trying to tell me that they lied to me? didn't know where they were born and came from?
-
@Wolfgang posted:
Your bold print provides what you asked for ..... they themselves did not originally come from those countries, their ancestors did.
Your analysis fails because in his tweet the president in fact declared that they themselves (the Congresswomen) came from other countries. There is NO reference in the tweet, contextual or otherwise, to their ancestors.
Context provides correct meaning ....
I have had USA born folks tell me, "We came from Ireland ..." or "We came from Germany ..." are you trying to tell me that they lied to me? didn't know where they were born and came from?
In such a context, the "we" could well refer to those people's family lines, of course; it might also refer to them solely. In the case of the president's tweet, however, the number of people referenced is not similarly flexible. The president doesn't say "they" or "their people" or "their ancestors" came from other countries.... He says the Congresswomen themselves came from other countries.
And as for context, remember a couple of points:
- One of the four Congresswomen - Rep. Omar - was actually born in a country other than the United States, which for your analysis means you think the president was referring to her personally, but only to the ancestors of the other three women. There is NO support in the text for such a view.
- Other than Native Americans, ALL Americans' ancestors came from other countries, which for your analysis means the president's observation about the four Congresswomen put them in the same genealogical boat as the rest of us. So why even make a point of it? Perhaps the governments of England, Norway, Ireland, and Germany were among "the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world" when MY ancestors came to America!
The bottom line is the text of the president's tweet doesn't say what you say it says, Wolfgang. As I pointed out in my previous post, but you chose not to respond to, you often implore CD posters to read sentences first for their simplest, most common sensible meaning. Such a reading in this case produces just one outcome: The president referred only to the four Congresswomen.
We've been at this exchange for several posts, without a great deal of progress. My view is that you and @reformed have refused to address directly the central question I've asked you because you know that a truthful answer does great damage to your view of Mr Trump. That central question is on what basis did the president conclude the three American-born Congresswomen were born in other countries? As I have shown previously, it wasn't their views, or their gender, or their religion. What's left? What is it that both of you know but aren't willing to acknowledge is the most likely factor in the president's tweet? Their race.
-
Of course @Bill_Coley your whole line of reasoning is a red herring. What has he done that is actually racist? Nothing. Not one single thing. And with regard to IQ, I'm not even sure AOC has an IQ. She opens her mouth and out pours STUPID.
-
That central question is on what basis did the president conclude the three American-born Congresswomen were born in other countries? As I have shown previously, it wasn't their views, or their gender, or their religion. What's left? What is it that both of you know but aren't willing to acknowledge is the most likely factor in the president's tweet? Their race.
The arguments are about COUNTRIES and people coming from countries which the president seems to regard as inferior to the standard of the USA iterms of their government and society, etc. Their race has not even been mentioned and has not been addressed by the president in those messages to which you have referred.
-
@Wolfgang polsted:
The arguments are about COUNTRIES and people coming from countries which the president seems to regard as inferior to the standard of the USA iterms of their government and society, etc. Their race has not even been mentioned and has not been addressed by the president in those messages to which you have referred.
We're having a lot of trouble communicating, Wolfgang.
- My point in our exchange has NOTHING to do with the social and governmental circumstances of countries.
- The fact that race has "not even been mentioned and hasn't been addressed by the president" is true IF the president decided those three American-born Congresswomen were born in countries other than the United States on the basis of something other than their race. On multiple occasions in this thread I've asked you and @reformed to suggest such a basis, but not once have you offered options.
As I've previously noted, I reject the idea that the president decided those Americans were foreign-born on the basis of their gender, policy views, or religion. Other than race, what's left? IF the president decided they were foreign-born because of their race - and I think he did - then he didn't have to say the word "race" out loud in order to "mention" or "address" it.
For the I-don't-know-how-manyeth time (!) on what basis other than race did the president decide those three American-born Congresswomen were born outside the U.S.? [EDIT: By my quick count, that was the seventh time in this thread I've requested a direct answer to that question. Obviously, the first six times didn't produce one. Here's hoping seven is my lucky number.]
Post edited by Bill_Coley on -
@reformed posted:
Of course @Bill_Coley your whole line of reasoning is a red herring. What has he done that is actually racist? Nothing. Not one single thing. And with regard to IQ, I'm not even sure AOC has an IQ. She opens her mouth and out pours STUPID.
Unless you can offer a reasonable basis other than race upon which the president concluded those three American-born Congresswomen were born in countries other than the United States, his decision itself as well as the tweet that published it were both clearly racist acts.
Two other quick examples: Calling Sen Warren "Pocahontas," and his telling a White House meeting in 2017 that everyone in Haiti has AIDS.
Your comments about AOC's IQ are no more dispositive or even worthy of evaluation than are the president's.
-
As I've previously noted, I reject the idea that the president decided those Americans were foreign-born on the basis of their gender, policy views, or religion. Other than race, what's left?
What is left is that he is talking about their ancestors having come from those countries ....
-
Perhaps you need to understand the definition of racist...
rac·ist
/ˈrāsəst/

- 1.
- a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another."the comments have led to her being called a racist"
- synonyms:racial bigot, racialist, xenophobe, chauvinist; More
adjective
- 1.
- showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another.
-
Exactly. Tlaib for example is VERY close to immigration. Her grandmother lives in the middle east.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
What is left is that he is talking about their ancestors having come from those countries ....
For the reasons I discussed earlier in this thread, in my view, there is no textual support for your claim, Wolfgang. The president's tweet simply does not state, suggest, or even intimate a reference to anyone other than the Congresswomen themselves.
Yet again I remind you of the counsel you have often posted for your fellow CD participants: Read the text first for its simplest, most common sensible meaning. By such a hermeneutic, there is clearly no support for your claim.
-
@reformed posted:
Exactly. Tlaib for example is VERY close to immigration. Her grandmother lives in the middle east.
In his tweet, the president didn't say those three American-born Congresswomen were "VERY close" to coming from other countries. He said they actually CAME from other countries.
See also my responses to Wolfgang on his assertion of a similar nature. The text of the president's tweet offers no support for any conclusion other than that he believed those women came from countries other than the United States. And that raises the question neither you nor Wolfgang will address directly: On what basis did he decide those American-born women came from other countries?
Perhaps you need to understand the definition of racist...
Thanks for the reminder, but I am very familiar with the definition of racism. Your posted definition confirms the validity of my claim of the president's racist views. The president's demonstration of "discrimination or prejudice against people of other races" has been clear from well before... and since... he took office.
-
For the reasons I discussed earlier in this thread, in my view, there is no textual support for your claim, Wolfgang.
Seems to me that your claims about the president's messages cited lacks the textual support.
The president's tweet simply does not state, suggest, or even intimate a reference to anyone other than the Congresswomen themselves.
Well, the text in Mt 1:1 does not state anything else, except that both Abraham and David were Jesus' father in that it says Jesus was their son.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
Seems to me that your claims about the president's messages cited lacks the textual support.
Here's where our exchange ends, Wolfgang. There simply isn't anything substantive about this response of yours. In a previous post I made clear the specific reasons for my belief that your claim lacks textual support. Here, you simply assert the same about my claims, but without any rationale, logic, or evidence. I can't argue with that... because you give me nothing to argue with.
Well, the text in Mt 1:1 does not state anything else, except that both Abraham and David were Jesus' father in that it says Jesus was their son.
The meaning of Matthew 1.1 is clearly that Jesus was a descendant of Abraham and David. In fact, the NLT Bible translates the verse to the include the word "descendants."
Now the relevance of Matthew 1.1 to our discussion of the president's tweet about the four Congresswomen of color is not at all clear.
-
@Bill_Coley The President obviously was misinformed about the other three besides Ohmar. But how does that make him racist? What about the comment is racist? NOTHING. Nationalist maybe but not racist.
-
@reformed posted:
The President obviously was misinformed about the other three besides Ohmar. But how does that make him racist? What about the comment is racist? NOTHING. Nationalist maybe but not racist.
IF the president's tweeted comment about those three Congresswomen was solely the product of bad information, then of course there was nothing necessarily racist about it. But to believe misinformation created the tweet we have to believe that someone - perhaps a presidential aide? - researched the birthplaces of four members of Congress and in THREE OF THE FOUR CASES mistakenly concluded the Congress member was not born in the United States. How likely is it that someone at the presidential aide level made a mistake of that magnitude three times in four tries? What are the chances that if YOU researched the birthplaces of four public figures, that YOU would get three of them wrong? VERY small, I contend.
A second option is that the president did the research himself, and in three of four cases got the facts wrong. What are the chances that happened? Given the typical content of his tweets and his penchant to include in them wild falsehoods, what are the chances Mr Trump did ANY research before composing and posting his tweet? Almost zero.
So the chances that the president was simply misinformed about the three Congresswomen are really, really, really small, which takes us back to where we started: That the president decided on some basis other than researched information that they were born in nations other than the United States. And upon our return to that circumstance, we remain with very few options, the most likely of which remains that he decided they were born outside the U.S. on the basis of their race... which would be a clearly racist action.
-
Why are you talking about aides?
Why are you saying research? What if he just spoke off the cuff?
And again, race has nothing to do with where you were born. Nationalist maybe, racist no. Try again you lose this one.
-
@reformed posted:
Why are you talking about aides?
Why are you saying research? What if he just spoke off the cuff?
I talk about aides and research as part of my continuing search for an answer to the question I've raised to you several times, the question to which you have now given at least THREE different responses: On what basis did the president decide those three Congresswomen of color were born in countries other than the United States?
- In THIS POST, you argued that one of the three representatives (Rep. Tlib) was "VERY close to immigration."
- When I pointed out that the president had not contended any of the Congresswomen was "VERY close" to having been born in other countries, but rather had alleged they actually WERE born in other countries, in THIS POST you asserted that "[t]he President obviously was misinformed about the other three besides Omar."
- And in your latest reply, responding to my speculation about the source of what you call the president's misinformation, you suggest the president may not have been informed at all, that he may simply have spoken "off the cuff."
So which was it? Was he basically right to assert that the representatives had been born in other countries since, in your view, at least one of them was "VERY close" to being from another country? Or was he simply misinformed about the three American-born Congresswomen? Or was the false content of his tweet not the product of misinformation either, but rather just whatever he happened to be thinking at that moment? (That is, no one gave him false data; he just made it up as he tweeted.)
The problem is NONE of those explanations directly addresses the question I asked:
- The "VERY close" rationalization is moot because it doesn't accurately reflect the president's claim about the three Congresswomen.
- The "misinformed" explanation withers without a reasonable hypothesis as to how the president received so much false information, a hypothesis you seem unwilling to propose.
- And your "off the cup" suggestion doesn't explain how the idea that those three women were born outside the United States got in the president's mind in the first place. Let's assume he was tweeting "off the cuff." Why did it occur to him that they were foreign born? If you ask me about the birth country of a member of Congress, my "off the cuff" - call it my default - response will be the United States. Thanks to the election of Rep. Omar, I know it's possible for members of Congress to be born in other countries. But the fact that she was born in Somalia has basically no impact on whether I think other members of Congress were born overseas. My default answer remains "the United States." Why did it even occur to the president that the other three were foreign born? Has the president ever "off the cuff" tweeted that one or more Caucasian members of Congress were born in other countries? Again, I ask for your direct responses to my questions.
And again, race has nothing to do with where you were born. Nationalist maybe, racist no. Try again you lose this one.
I don't know what you mean by race having "nothing to do with where you were born." But there certainly is SOME measure of correlation between birth nation and race. The VAST majority of people born in Scandanavian countries ARE white. And the VAST majority of people born in African nations ARE people of color. Statistically, if you were born in an African nation, the chances are very high that you are person of color. And if you are a person of color, the chances are very low that you were born in a Scandanavian country. That's not good or bad! That's simply demographic fact.
And the question REMAINS!!! Why did the president think of those three Congresswomen of color and decide they were foreign-born? The fact that I am STILL asking you that question (because you have yet to address it directly) tells of its challenge to you and other of the president's supporters.
----------------------------------------
Oh, and for the reasons made clear by the content of this post, I don't agree that I "[lost] this one."
-
Again, you are grasping at straws. There is zero racist actions by this president. You have YET to produce even one valid claim.
-
@reformed posted:
Again, you are grasping at straws. There is zero racist actions by this president. You have YET to produce even one valid claim.
That I have indeed produced "even one valid claim" of the president's racism is strongly indicated by the fact that though I have raised the issue in eight different posts - THIS ONE, THIS ONE, THIS ONE, THIS ONE, THIS ONE, THIS ONE, THIS ONE, and THIS ONE - and have asked you the question directly almost that many times, you have yet to offer one direct, non-evasive answer. As I pointed out in my last post, you've offered various and contradictory responses to the question, but not one, single one. The fact that you chose not to respond to the substance of my last post, the one in which I showed the logical and/or factual failures of your various responses, is evidence of the weakness of your previous claims.
And what is that question you have evaded so many times? For the ninth time: On what basis other than race did the president decide three American-born Congresswomen of color were born in countries other than the United States?
If the president is not a racist, as you claim he isn't, then you should have been able to provide a crisp, coherent response to that question in your very first crack it. The fact that you have evaded, avoided, and responded in various and contradictory ways to it since demonstrates that it's most likely that you don't have a crisp, coherent response... because there was no basis other than race that the president decided those American-born Congresswomen of color were born in countries other than the U.S.
-
I have not evaded anything. Again, nationalist yes, racist, no. I have also offered he was mistaken on three of the four of the idiot squad. However, one makes sense, Tlaib considering how close she is. But that's not racist. I suggest you figure out what a racist actually is. I'm convinced liberals such as yourself don't know what that word actually means since you drop it at anything that goes against what you believe.
Liberal playbook:
Call them racist.
Call them bigot.
Call them mean-spirited.
Etc.
It's all you got. You change definitions of these things. There is no reality in what you say or claim.
-
@reformed posted:
I have not evaded anything. Again, nationalist yes, racist, no. I have also offered he was mistaken on three of the four of the idiot squad. However, one makes sense, Tlaib considering how close she is. But that's not racist.
And once again you evade the question.
We ALL know he was "mistaken" when he claimed three American-born Congresswomen of color were born in countries other than the U.S. so I didn't ask whether the president was mistaken. I asked on what basis other than race he made that mistake. Somehow, on some basis, the president decided those three American-born women were born outside the U.S. What was that basis? Why did it even cross his mind that they were born overseas?
- Did his aides give him bad information?
- Did he misunderstand the results of a Google search?
- Did he just assume they were foreign-born since Rep. Omar was foreign-born?
- Has he ever mistakenly asserted that one or more Caucasian members of Congress were foreign-born?
For the tenth time I ask for your DIRECT AND NON-EVASIVE response to this question: On what basis other than race did the president decide three American-born Congresswomen of color were born in countries other than the United States? [NOTE: I know you can't know for sure what was in the president's mind when he created that tweet. I'm asking only for what you believe is the most likely explanation for the president's mistake.]
-
I've already addressed this. With Omar, he was correct. With Tlaib, it is undertsandable, I actually thought she was born in Palestine as well. The others are just lumped into the group of the idiot squad.
-
@reformed posted:
I've already addressed this. With Omar, he was correct. With Tlaib, it is undertsandable, I actually thought she was born in Palestine as well. The others are just lumped into the group of the idiot squad.
So your argument is that the president correctly reported Rep. Omar's nation of birth - somehow he got that one right - but he was wrong on the other three. Whatever method of research or discernment that produced an accurate result with regards to Somali-born Congresswoman of color #1 failed as regards to American-born Congresswomen of color #s 2-4. And why did that method fail on all three American-born leaders? (which of course, IS the question I asked)
- You suggest that the president "[understandably]" decided that American-born Congresswoman of color #2 was foreign-born. Why? Perhaps her name? Tlaib? Anyone with that name must have been born overseas! Of course! Why Barack Hussein Obama must have been born overseas! ... just not in Palestine. He was born in Kenya (!) candidate Trump and his followers told us for many years......
- But perhaps it wasn't her name that gave the president cause to decide American-born Congresswoman of color #2 wasn't born in America. Perhaps it was her hijab! Anyone who wears a hijab had to have been born overseas! ... Oh wait. Rep Tlaib (A-B CoC #2) doesn't wear a hijab.
- How about her... views?! Anyone with her views had to have been born overseas, right?!... Sadly, she's not the only American-born person who holds her views.
- Then what was it? On what basis did the president decide Rep. Tlaib was foreign-born? From your post, we STILL don't know your assessment as to what underwrote the president's viewpoint. But we have hope! You claim that YOU, yourself, "thought she was born in Palestine." So, you obviously will not address my question about the president's views, perhaps you WILL address my question about YOURS. On what basis did YOU believe Rep. Tlaib was "born in Palestine"?
- And then we're left with American-born Congresswomen of color #s 3-4. On what basis did the president decide they weren't born in America? You propose that the president "just lumped [them] into the group of the idiot squad." Interesting, this hypothesis of yours, because lumping people into groups they don't belong in is something racists are REALLY good at.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
