(07-28-2019 02:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]There is very little Trump love here, and none from me. Y
I too have been called a "Trump-lover" a few times, with equally zero basis in fact. It does indeed seem to be a form of derangement.
(07-29-2019 11:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 10:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 10:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 10:33 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]It's all in the words that both used. It should be pretty clear that the issue people took wasn't that Trump dissed Baltimore, but how he did it.
I'll explain how this matters. Let's say Person A says, "Man, I really hate workin with John, he's such a short-tempered :insert racial epithet:"
Then, let's say Person B says, "Man, I really hate working with John, he's so short-tempered."
Is Person A racist because they criticized John? No. Person A is racist because of the language they used to criticize John. And that doesn't mean that Person B, who also criticized John, is racist by common action.
Trump used racial epithets in his criticism of Baltimore? Link, please.
Actually, link me to any language he used that's actually racist, and not just labeled as such by people playing the race card to silence criticism.
I was explaining clearly how two people could criticize the same thing, but one criticism is racist and the other isn't. Do you disagree with how that works?
The comparison of Trump and Sanders is disingenuous because it wasn't the criticism of Baltimore that started the brouhaha. The brouhaha was started because Trump used the phrase "disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess," which he has used on a regular basis to describe things connected to POC - therefore, some people have felt the need to call his language racist.
It's not disingenuous to argue that what he said isn't racist; but that isn't what OO did. If you can provide some evidence that Trump uses similar language to attack white Reps and the areas they come from, then you've got a good piece of evidence that this language isn't something Trump only reserves for POC.
So an accurate statement is now grounds for racism. Got it.
Good lord we are seeing max-'wigout' now.
Please note where Trump has used "disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess," elsewhere. I am curious.
If he says that about downtown LA, or Detroit, or Flint, (or anywhere else there is ostensibly a Democratic-controlled shithole urban city that seems so prevalent, for that matter), he might be making a non-racial based point. Or are you blind about that?
In short lad's argument boils down to 'Orange man bad, orange man used rough, uncensored description; therefore Orange man racist as well'
Seems this chapter and verse would be a source of the solution to the world's clean energy issue of someone could extract physical work from it.
Personally I view Trump's assessment of West Baltimore as probably generous.
And I would view Trump's comments about West Baltimore about not going as far as they should. He has a way of suddenly bringing an issue to the surface that people have long known about, but never wanted to confront.
I would look at Orkin's ten most rat infested cities, and the statistics on the 10 worst crime ridden cities in America. They share something very much in common.
As I clearly said, it is not disingenuous to argue what Trump said wasn’t racist...
...but to say that what he said is no more racist than what someone else said
is disingenuous? That's gold-medal mental gymnastics.
Trumps refers to part of Baltimore as a "disgusting rat-infested mess", Sanders compares it to a third world country and to North Korea. Stating that neither statement is racist is
disingenuous? Are you sure you know what the word means?
(07-29-2019 10:49 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 10:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 10:33 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]School him, Lad. Explain why Trump dissing Baltimore is racist, and Sanders dissing Baltimore is not.
It's all in the words that both used. It should be pretty clear that the issue people took wasn't that Trump dissed Baltimore, but how he did it.
I'll explain how this matters. Let's say Person A says, "Man, I really hate workin with John, he's such a short-tempered :insert racial epithet:"
Then, let's say Person B says, "Man, I really hate working with John, he's so short-tempered."
Is Person A racist because they criticized John? No. Person A is racist because of the language they used to criticize John. And that doesn't mean that Person B, who also criticized John, is racist by common action.
Trump used racial epithets in his criticism of Baltimore? Link, please.
Actually, link me to any language he used that's actually racist, and not just labeled as such by people playing the race card to silence criticism.
I was explaining clearly how two people could criticize the same thing, but one criticism is racist and the other isn't. Do you disagree with how that works?
The comparison of Trump and Sanders is disingenuous because it wasn't the criticism of Baltimore that started the brouhaha. The brouhaha was started because Trump used the phrase "disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess," which he has used on a regular basis to describe things connected to POC - therefore, some people have felt the need to call his language racist.
It's not disingenuous to argue that what he said isn't racist; but that isn't what OO did. If you can provide some evidence that Trump uses similar language to attack white Reps and the areas they come from, then you've got a good piece of evidence that this language isn't something Trump only reserves for POC.
Wow... just wow.
Orwell was a prophet.
yes, he was, and he predicted the world the "progressives" want.
Also, it sounds as if lad is hewing to the new Democratic standard of justice, "Guilty until exonerated'. (You're a racist! Prove you aren't!)
(07-29-2019 11:27 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 11:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 10:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 10:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 10:33 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Trump used racial epithets in his criticism of Baltimore? Link, please.
Actually, link me to any language he used that's actually racist, and not just labeled as such by people playing the race card to silence criticism.
I was explaining clearly how two people could criticize the same thing, but one criticism is racist and the other isn't. Do you disagree with how that works?
The comparison of Trump and Sanders is disingenuous because it wasn't the criticism of Baltimore that started the brouhaha. The brouhaha was started because Trump used the phrase "disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess," which he has used on a regular basis to describe things connected to POC - therefore, some people have felt the need to call his language racist.
It's not disingenuous to argue that what he said isn't racist; but that isn't what OO did. If you can provide some evidence that Trump uses similar language to attack white Reps and the areas they come from, then you've got a good piece of evidence that this language isn't something Trump only reserves for POC.
So an accurate statement is now grounds for racism. Got it.
Good lord we are seeing max-'wigout' now.
Please note where Trump has used "disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess," elsewhere. I am curious.
If he says that about downtown LA, or Detroit, or Flint, (or anywhere else there is ostensibly a Democratic-controlled shithole urban city that seems so prevalent, for that matter), he might be making a non-racial based point. Or are you blind about that?
In short lad's argument boils down to 'Orange man bad, orange man used rough, uncensored description; therefore Orange man racist as well'
Seems this chapter and verse would be a source of the solution to the world's clean energy issue of someone could extract physical work from it.
Personally I view Trump's assessment of West Baltimore as probably generous.
And I would view Trump's comments about West Baltimore about not going as far as they should. He has a way of suddenly bringing an issue to the surface that people have long known about, but never wanted to confront.
I would look at Orkin's ten most rat infested cities, and the statistics on the 10 worst crime ridden cities in America. They share something very much in common.
As I clearly said, it is not disingenuous to argue what Trump said wasn’t racist...
...but to say that what he said is no more racist than what someone else said is disingenuous? That's gold-medal mental gymnastics.
Trumps refers to part of Baltimore as a "disgusting rat-infested mess", Sanders compares it to a third world country and to North Korea. Stating that neither statement is racist is disingenuous? Are you sure you know what the word means?
But that isn’t what OO did. OO said that, if what Trump said was racist, then what Bernie said must also be racist. That is distinctly different than saying that neither statement is racist.
Are you sure you know what words mean?
(07-29-2019 11:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 11:27 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 11:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 10:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 10:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I was explaining clearly how two people could criticize the same thing, but one criticism is racist and the other isn't. Do you disagree with how that works?
The comparison of Trump and Sanders is disingenuous because it wasn't the criticism of Baltimore that started the brouhaha. The brouhaha was started because Trump used the phrase "disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess," which he has used on a regular basis to describe things connected to POC - therefore, some people have felt the need to call his language racist.
It's not disingenuous to argue that what he said isn't racist; but that isn't what OO did. If you can provide some evidence that Trump uses similar language to attack white Reps and the areas they come from, then you've got a good piece of evidence that this language isn't something Trump only reserves for POC.
So an accurate statement is now grounds for racism. Got it.
Good lord we are seeing max-'wigout' now.
Please note where Trump has used "disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess," elsewhere. I am curious.
If he says that about downtown LA, or Detroit, or Flint, (or anywhere else there is ostensibly a Democratic-controlled shithole urban city that seems so prevalent, for that matter), he might be making a non-racial based point. Or are you blind about that?
In short lad's argument boils down to 'Orange man bad, orange man used rough, uncensored description; therefore Orange man racist as well'
Seems this chapter and verse would be a source of the solution to the world's clean energy issue of someone could extract physical work from it.
Personally I view Trump's assessment of West Baltimore as probably generous.
And I would view Trump's comments about West Baltimore about not going as far as they should. He has a way of suddenly bringing an issue to the surface that people have long known about, but never wanted to confront.
I would look at Orkin's ten most rat infested cities, and the statistics on the 10 worst crime ridden cities in America. They share something very much in common.
As I clearly said, it is not disingenuous to argue what Trump said wasn’t racist...
...but to say that what he said is no more racist than what someone else said is disingenuous? That's gold-medal mental gymnastics.
Trumps refers to part of Baltimore as a "disgusting rat-infested mess", Sanders compares it to a third world country and to North Korea. Stating that neither statement is racist is disingenuous? Are you sure you know what the word means?
But that isn’t what OO did. OO said that, if what Trump said was racist, then what Bernie said must also be racist. That is distinctly different than saying that neither statement is racist.
Are you sure you know what words mean?
A triple somersault!
Let's see your Matrix-style kung-fu move on this one:
Trump made an observation about Baltimore that contained no racist language. If making a valid observation about Baltimore that contains no racist language is racist, then anyone who makes a valid observation about Baltimore is being racist - unless there's a presumptive double standard in play (which of course was the point OO was making).
(07-29-2019 11:46 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 11:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 11:27 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 11:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 10:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]So an accurate statement is now grounds for racism. Got it.
Good lord we are seeing max-'wigout' now.
Please note where Trump has used "disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess," elsewhere. I am curious.
If he says that about downtown LA, or Detroit, or Flint, (or anywhere else there is ostensibly a Democratic-controlled shithole urban city that seems so prevalent, for that matter), he might be making a non-racial based point. Or are you blind about that?
In short lad's argument boils down to 'Orange man bad, orange man used rough, uncensored description; therefore Orange man racist as well'
Seems this chapter and verse would be a source of the solution to the world's clean energy issue of someone could extract physical work from it.
Personally I view Trump's assessment of West Baltimore as probably generous.
And I would view Trump's comments about West Baltimore about not going as far as they should. He has a way of suddenly bringing an issue to the surface that people have long known about, but never wanted to confront.
I would look at Orkin's ten most rat infested cities, and the statistics on the 10 worst crime ridden cities in America. They share something very much in common.
As I clearly said, it is not disingenuous to argue what Trump said wasn’t racist...
...but to say that what he said is no more racist than what someone else said is disingenuous? That's gold-medal mental gymnastics.
Trumps refers to part of Baltimore as a "disgusting rat-infested mess", Sanders compares it to a third world country and to North Korea. Stating that neither statement is racist is disingenuous? Are you sure you know what the word means?
But that isn’t what OO did. OO said that, if what Trump said was racist, then what Bernie said must also be racist. That is distinctly different than saying that neither statement is racist.
Are you sure you know what words mean?
A triple somersault!
Let's see your Matrix-style kung-fu move on this one:
Trump made an observation about Baltimore that contained no racist language. If making a valid observation about Baltimore that contains no racist language is racist, then anyone who makes a valid observation about Baltimore is being racist - unless there's a presumptive double standard in play (which of course was the point OO was making).
And some people are arguing that him using specific phrases he used were racist.
Again, it is not disingenuous to argue that what he said wasn’t racist - I completely understand where people are coming from there. But it’s clear that the criticism is connected directly to the specific words he chose to criticize a portion of Baltimore, not that he just criticized a portion of Baltimore.
It is disingenuous to argue that since Trump’s specific words and criticism are racist, therefore, any other criticism of the same place is racist, because it is clear that people took issue over the specific word choice and not just the criticism of a portion of Baltimore.
(07-29-2019 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 11:46 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 11:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 11:27 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 11:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]As I clearly said, it is not disingenuous to argue what Trump said wasn’t racist...
...but to say that what he said is no more racist than what someone else said is disingenuous? That's gold-medal mental gymnastics.
Trumps refers to part of Baltimore as a "disgusting rat-infested mess", Sanders compares it to a third world country and to North Korea. Stating that neither statement is racist is disingenuous? Are you sure you know what the word means?
But that isn’t what OO did. OO said that, if what Trump said was racist, then what Bernie said must also be racist. That is distinctly different than saying that neither statement is racist.
Are you sure you know what words mean?
A triple somersault!
Let's see your Matrix-style kung-fu move on this one:
Trump made an observation about Baltimore that contained no racist language. If making a valid observation about Baltimore that contains no racist language is racist, then anyone who makes a valid observation about Baltimore is being racist - unless there's a presumptive double standard in play (which of course was the point OO was making).
And some people are arguing that him using specific phrases he used were racist.
Their argument is nonsense. The specific phrase contains no racist language.
Quote:Again, it is not disingenuous to argue that what he said wasn’t racist - I completely understand where people are coming from there. But it’s clear that the criticism is connected directly to the specific words he chose to criticize a portion of Baltimore, not that he just criticized a portion of Baltimore.
It is disingenuous to argue that since Trump’s specific words and criticism are racist, therefore, any other criticism of the same place is racist, because it is clear that people took issue over the specific word choice and not just the criticism of a portion of Baltimore.
This is the presumptive double standard... the words came from Trump, so they must be racist.
That's disingenuous.
(07-29-2019 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]not just the criticism of a portion of Baltimore.
Somebody (you?) gave us the editorial from the Baltimore Sun. Sure sounded like they were upset by the criticism of a portion of Baltimore.
Suppose Trump had called Baltimore a third world country worse than North Korea, and Sanders had said it was a rat infested mess. Who would the Progressives be calling a racist then?
Trump of course. Double standard applies.
Truth is, neither statement was racist. But if one was, both were.
(07-29-2019 12:03 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 11:46 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 11:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 11:27 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ]...but to say that what he said is no more racist than what someone else said is disingenuous? That's gold-medal mental gymnastics.
Trumps refers to part of Baltimore as a "disgusting rat-infested mess", Sanders compares it to a third world country and to North Korea. Stating that neither statement is racist is disingenuous? Are you sure you know what the word means?
But that isn’t what OO did. OO said that, if what Trump said was racist, then what Bernie said must also be racist. That is distinctly different than saying that neither statement is racist.
Are you sure you know what words mean?
A triple somersault!
Let's see your Matrix-style kung-fu move on this one:
Trump made an observation about Baltimore that contained no racist language. If making a valid observation about Baltimore that contains no racist language is racist, then anyone who makes a valid observation about Baltimore is being racist - unless there's a presumptive double standard in play (which of course was the point OO was making).
And some people are arguing that him using specific phrases he used were racist.
Their argument is nonsense. The specific phrase contains no racist language.
Quote:Again, it is not disingenuous to argue that what he said wasn’t racist - I completely understand where people are coming from there. But it’s clear that the criticism is connected directly to the specific words he chose to criticize a portion of Baltimore, not that he just criticized a portion of Baltimore.
It is disingenuous to argue that since Trump’s specific words and criticism are racist, therefore, any other criticism of the same place is racist, because it is clear that people took issue over the specific word choice and not just the criticism of a portion of Baltimore.
This is the presumptive double standard... the words came from Trump, so they must be racist. That's disingenuous.
here is lad's position(s):
In short lad's argument boils down to:
a) 'Orange man bad, orange man used rough, uncensored description; therefore Orange man racist as well'
b) 'Berning Man man good, Berning Man man used equivalent rough, uncensored description; therefore Berning Man not racist as well'
How do you all like my new Bernie description? Berning Man......... almost on peer with OOs Beta....
have y'all noticed how Orange man is making the entire progressive/Democratic side defend the indefensible?
He has made them defend the Squad tooth and nail;
he is now making them defend the implied subject of 60 years of Democratic rule of Baltimore with the obvious results from the last three years, including the epicenter of West Baltimore.
The Left is now seemingly "in its 3rd straight year of successive 5 minute hate cycles."
It is really interesting to see the Left absolutely race and fall over themselves to max out that Race (Credit) Card they got such generous loan terms on.
He is getting the entire left not just doubling down, nor tripling, nor quadrupling, but probably quintipling (or more) down on that favorite Trump suit card they have going.
Nadler on impeachment: "IF we find more evidence..."
(07-29-2019 12:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Suppose Trump had called Baltimore a third world country worse than North Korea, and Sanders had said it was a rat infested mess. Who would the Progressives be calling a racist then?
Trump of course. Double standard applies.
Truth is, neither statement was racist. But if one was, both were.
I don't know - the Dems were quick to throw Al Franken out of office when photos surfaced showing him pretending to feel up a sleeping woman; for better or worse. The Dems have proven that they're willing to eat their own, fairly quickly.
I'm sure there are some cases of hypocrisy, though.
(07-29-2019 12:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]have y'all noticed how Orange man is making the entire progressive/Democratic side defend the indefensible?
He has made them defend the Squad tooth and nail;
he is now making them defend the implied subject of 60 years of Democratic rule of Baltimore with the obvious results from the last three years, including the epicenter of West Baltimore.
The Left is now seemingly "in its 3rd straight year of successive 5 minute hate cycles."
I don't look at the tweet from Trump describing Cummings' district as racist by itself.
I do, however, agree that the pattern of using that type of language only to describe areas where primarily POC reside is troubling.
It seems to be another example of Trump walking the line carefully. He tends to push the limits of "acceptable" speech while still punching out against his enemies and thereby firing up his base.
(07-29-2019 12:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 12:03 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 11:46 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 11:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]But that isn’t what OO did. OO said that, if what Trump said was racist, then what Bernie said must also be racist. That is distinctly different than saying that neither statement is racist.
Are you sure you know what words mean?
A triple somersault!
Let's see your Matrix-style kung-fu move on this one:
Trump made an observation about Baltimore that contained no racist language. If making a valid observation about Baltimore that contains no racist language is racist, then anyone who makes a valid observation about Baltimore is being racist - unless there's a presumptive double standard in play (which of course was the point OO was making).
And some people are arguing that him using specific phrases he used were racist.
Their argument is nonsense. The specific phrase contains no racist language.
Quote:Again, it is not disingenuous to argue that what he said wasn’t racist - I completely understand where people are coming from there. But it’s clear that the criticism is connected directly to the specific words he chose to criticize a portion of Baltimore, not that he just criticized a portion of Baltimore.
It is disingenuous to argue that since Trump’s specific words and criticism are racist, therefore, any other criticism of the same place is racist, because it is clear that people took issue over the specific word choice and not just the criticism of a portion of Baltimore.
This is the presumptive double standard... the words came from Trump, so they must be racist. That's disingenuous.
here is lad's position(s):
In short lad's argument boils down to:
a) 'Orange man bad, orange man used rough, uncensored description; therefore Orange man racist as well'
b) 'Berning Man man good, Berning Man man used equivalent rough, uncensored description; therefore Berning Man not racist as well'
How do you all like my new Bernie description? Berning Man......... almost on peer with OOs Beta....
You are both very, very clever. *head pat*
(07-29-2019 12:53 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 12:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]have y'all noticed how Orange man is making the entire progressive/Democratic side defend the indefensible?
He has made them defend the Squad tooth and nail;
he is now making them defend the implied subject of 60 years of Democratic rule of Baltimore with the obvious results from the last three years, including the epicenter of West Baltimore.
The Left is now seemingly "in its 3rd straight year of successive 5 minute hate cycles."
I don't look at the tweet from Trump describing Cummings' district as racist by itself.
I do, however, agree that the pattern of using that type of language only to describe areas where primarily POC reside is troubling.
It seems to be another example of Trump walking the line carefully. He tends to push the limits of "acceptable" speech while still punching out against his enemies and thereby firing up his base.
The overwhelming majority of inner-city neighborhoods that can aptly be described that way are populated by POC, so it stands to reason that when that when applied, that phrase will usually be applied to a POC neighborhood.
(Of course, nobody here has shown that Trump has used that phrase repeatedly. Second request.)
(07-29-2019 01:00 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 12:53 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2019 12:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]have y'all noticed how Orange man is making the entire progressive/Democratic side defend the indefensible?
He has made them defend the Squad tooth and nail;
he is now making them defend the implied subject of 60 years of Democratic rule of Baltimore with the obvious results from the last three years, including the epicenter of West Baltimore.
The Left is now seemingly "in its 3rd straight year of successive 5 minute hate cycles."
I don't look at the tweet from Trump describing Cummings' district as racist by itself.
I do, however, agree that the pattern of using that type of language only to describe areas where primarily POC reside is troubling.
It seems to be another example of Trump walking the line carefully. He tends to push the limits of "acceptable" speech while still punching out against his enemies and thereby firing up his base.
The overwhelming majority of inner-city neighborhoods that can aptly be described that way are populated by POC, so it stands to reason that when that when applied, that phrase will usually be applied to a POC neighborhood.
(Of course, nobody here has shown that Trump has used that phrase repeatedly. Second request.)
There are plenty of white-majority neighborhoods that can be described that way if one chose to do so.
This clip points out the pattern of language that Trump uses:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_conti...YANRUos8Hg
"If one chooses to do so"? I could describe Rice as a football powerhouse if I chose to do so...
(07-29-2019 01:11 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ]"If one chooses to do so"? I could describe Rice as a football powerhouse if I chose to do so...
Not sure I get your point here?