(11-10-2016 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  As Obama said in his speech after Trump won, it is a baton race and he is going to try and set his successor up for success. Hopefully the rest of the elected officials do not try and undermine him at EVERY opportunity (just some of them, I mean, they do have vastly different opinions on some topics).

That was one Obama speech I DID like. He appeared to pledge not act the way that Bill Clinton's team did to Bush when they left the White House.

(11-10-2016 02:05 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Trump's rhetoric on Muslims has been extremely heated and hateful at times.

I probably didn't pay near enough attention to Trump's public pronouncements, in part because I didn't anticipate him being the nominee, much less the President elect.

I do know he was calling for an outright ban on Muslim immigration, which I suspect is unconstitutional, at least at some level.

Do you have examples of the heated and hateful rhetoric? I can well imagine rhetoric that matches that description, but want to get a frame of reference on what he actually said and what meets the 'heated and hateful' qualifiers.

As noted earlier, if someone has an unfavorable view of Islam (as a belief system) that doesn't automatically translate to bigotry, hatred or inappropriate behavior, and shouldn't be equated with racism.

As I noted earlier, we all understand there are secular/modern adherents of Islam, and more historic/fundamental adherents. There are nominal Muslims and there are the Sunni/Shia branches.

Given that there are governments that practice Sharia Law, and that 'honor killings' are condoned in many areas of the Muslim world, and that in order for the Pakistani government to allow someone to escape the death penalty for converting (of their own free will) from Islam to Christianity, the defendant had to be declared 'insane', the differing level of rights afforded non-Muslims in the Koran, combined with ISIS/Al Queda, terrorist acts in Europe

I think that it's not unfair to characterize some aspects of Islamic belief antithetical to our Constitution. And that's without addressing the restrictions on women's rights.

I don't believe the "Islamophobia" you're referring to has any similarities to racism in its genesis. I believe it has more to do with unfavorable views of the belief system.

To put it a little differently. I don't think anyone has an issue with Germans immigrating to this country. However, if someone is an avowed Nazi, IIRC we had definite restrictions on who we would let in the country after WWII.

Certainly neo-Nazi groups are not on the top of the list that most of us want to propogate and protect. They have rights here, but the party is outlawed in Germany.

Liberals seem to be concerned about the levels of non-college educated white, males supporting Trump.

I believe we need to treat Muslims the same as anyone else, that their rights, freedoms and safety should be guaranteed. I echo President Bush's sentiments that when sought out the perpetrators of 9/11, we needed to avoid the bigotry of tying over a billion people, the majority of whom are peaceful, with the actions of extremists. But the belief system itself does not by nature lend itself to 'freedom of belief' or 'equal treatment under the law' to non-adherents.

Based on your posts, I suspect you are concerned about potential rises in racism or neo-Nazism. Agreed that would be bad.

But given the above, how is your concern different than what you are labeling 'Islamophobia'?

(11-10-2016 02:59 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 02:05 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Trump's rhetoric on Muslims has been extremely heated and hateful at times.

I probably didn't pay near enough attention to Trump's public pronouncements, in part because I didn't anticipate him being the nominee, much less the President elect.

I do know he was calling for an outright ban on Muslim immigration, which I suspect is unconstitutional, at least at some level.

Do you have examples of the heated and hateful rhetoric? I can well imagine rhetoric that matches that description, but want to get a frame of reference on what he actually said and what meets the 'heated and hateful' qualifiers.

As noted earlier, if someone has an unfavorable view of Islam (as a belief system) that doesn't automatically translate to bigotry, hatred or inappropriate behavior, and shouldn't be equated with racism.

As I noted earlier, we all understand there are secular/modern adherents of Islam, and more historic/fundamental adherents. There are nominal Muslims and there are the Sunni/Shia branches.

Given that there are governments that practice Sharia Law, and that 'honor killings' are condoned in many areas of the Muslim world, and that in order for the Pakistani government to allow someone to escape the death penalty for converting (of their own free will) from Islam to Christianity, the defendant had to be declared 'insane', the differing level of rights afforded non-Muslims in the Koran, combined with ISIS/Al Queda, terrorist acts in Europe

I think that it's not unfair to characterize some aspects of Islamic belief antithetical to our Constitution. And that's without addressing the restrictions on women's rights.

I don't believe the "Islamophobia" you're referring to has any similarities to racism in its genesis. I believe it has more to do with unfavorable views of the belief system.

To put it a little differently. I don't think anyone has an issue with Germans immigrating to this country. However, if someone is an avowed Nazi, IIRC we had definite restrictions on who we would let in the country after WWII.

Certainly neo-Nazi groups are not on the top of the list that most of us want to propogate and protect. They have rights here, but the party is outlawed in Germany.

Liberals seem to be concerned about the levels of non-college educated white, males supporting Trump.

I believe we need to treat Muslims the same as anyone else, that their rights, freedoms and safety should be guaranteed. I echo President Bush's sentiments that when sought out the perpetrators of 9/11, we needed to avoid the bigotry of tying over a billion people, the majority of whom are peaceful, with the actions of extremists. But the belief system itself does not by nature lend itself to 'freedom of belief' or 'equal treatment under the law' to non-adherents.

Based on your posts, I suspect you are concerned about potential rises in racism or neo-Nazism. Agreed that would be bad.

But given the above, how is your concern different than what you are labeling 'Islamophobia'?

I think your German example is a good one. No one should ban all Muslims from entering the country, just as all Germans shouldn't have been. However, it's perfectly acceptable to not allow people with ties to radical islam/terrorism to be screened out, just like with Nazis.

JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Actually, I hear a lot of this being discussed on "the left" just maybe not in places you venture. Even heard an extensive discussion of it on NPR yesterday, while most Dems were still in shock.
You seem to be completely tone deaf in how downplaying or outright contemptuously dismissing the concerns of others about said -isms alienates those targeted. It's almost comical, for example, how many white people think they get to decide what African-Americans are allowed to be upset about and how they are allowed to protest.
Trump's rhetoric on Muslims has been extremely heated and hateful at times. But calling him out on it is the real problem somehow?

You really don't get it. I'm amazed at how you constantly fail to grasp the point that OO and I and perhaps others are trying to make.

Try to understand this. If you keep calling Johnny a racist, and Johnny is not one, then when you call Jimmy a racist, Johnny is not going to believe you. When the standard reply to any criticism of Obama for 8 years has been, oh, you're just a racist who hates the black man, you're going to piss off mightily every non-racist who disagrees with Obama.

I'm neither Jimmy nor Johnny in the above. I'm observing from outside and telling you what I see. So don't go trying to argue by attributing things to me, particularly not falsely attributing them. You can't draw any inference about how I feel from what I am writing, because I'm not talking about how I feel.

OK, I will insert a bit about how I feel. Whenever I've disagreed with Obama in public over the last 8 years, very quickly some leftist has launched the racist allegation against me. Totally unsubstantiated and untrue, but that never counted for anything. And quite frankly, I'm pretty pissed off about it and tired of it. Now, I'm not going to express my anger by voting for Trump, primarily because I disagree with him on his three big issues--Muslims, Mexicans, and free trade. But I can understand how others can feel that way.

And I don't know of many, if any, whites who think that they should get to decide what African-Americans can get upset about. But what they do expect is that they have the right to have a different opinion and to express it without being marginalized, that African-Americans are not the only people who have the right to get upset. Colin Kaepernick has the right to kneel for the national anthem. I have the right to decide that he is a POS for doing it.

(11-10-2016 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I completely agree with this. And I hope to God that the Dems do not pull the same stunt that the Reps have done for the past 8 years and try to make Trump a one-term president by digging their heels in the ground as hard as possible on almost every single issue.

I hope they can pick their battles on when to compromise and when to dig in, and that the compromise is much more frequent. As Obama said in his speech after Trump won, it is a baton race and he is going to try and set his successor up for success. Hopefully the rest of the elected officials do not try and undermine him at EVERY opportunity (just some of them, I mean, they do have vastly different opinions on some topics).

The Rs control both houses of Congress. The Ds' only power for the next 2 (and probably 4) years is the filibuster, and some Rs (though not McConnell) are already talking about eliminating that altogether. The only decision for D senators right now is whether to roll over, or to press the Rs to revoke the filibuster.

Also, the 2018 Senate map is brutal for the Ds.

One way or another, the Rs are going to implement their economic agenda. If it works, great! If it fails, hold them accountable in future elections.

Meanwhile, clean house at the DNC.

(11-10-2016 04:33 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I completely agree with this. And I hope to God that the Dems do not pull the same stunt that the Reps have done for the past 8 years and try to make Trump a one-term president by digging their heels in the ground as hard as possible on almost every single issue.

I hope they can pick their battles on when to compromise and when to dig in, and that the compromise is much more frequent. As Obama said in his speech after Trump won, it is a baton race and he is going to try and set his successor up for success. Hopefully the rest of the elected officials do not try and undermine him at EVERY opportunity (just some of them, I mean, they do have vastly different opinions on some topics).

The Rs control both houses of Congress. The Ds' only power for the next 2 (and probably 4) years is the filibuster, and some Rs (though not McConnell) are already talking about eliminating that altogether. The only decision for D senators right now is whether to roll over, or to press the Rs to revoke the filibuster.

Also, the 2018 Senate map is brutal for the Ds.

One way or another, the Rs are going to implement their economic agenda. If it works, great! If it fails, hold them accountable in future elections.

Meanwhile, clean house at the DNC.

That's what I mean - I hope they don't try and fillibuster everything and have that lead to its removal. It has a point but can be abused.

(11-10-2016 12:21 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  .

But your position is that I can't call out trump supporters or Trump himself if they make racist comments because I might hurt your feelings (even though you're not even a Trump supporter)?

Is that what I said? Surprises me.

(11-10-2016 02:23 PM)sts60 Wrote:  And, as I am an optimistic Owl - even though I'm not OptimisticOwl (for which I'm sure he is duly grateful),

Glad to see you are optimistic.

Quote:No, this is a man whose only inviolate principle is that his ego must be served.

I see HRC as exactly the same, only more polished politically in hiding her personal opinion while espousing her public one.

She set her heart on being the first female president. What bigger ego trip is there? I always thought, and often said, her goals would be attained when she stepped off the inaugural platform.

Here is an interesting comment from the referenced web-article:

Story on Failure of Polls

In a September article in The Atlantic (appropriately headlined, “Taking Trump seriously”), Salena Zito wrote of Trump, “The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.” The media spent time picking over everything Trump said as though he were serious, when he often wasn’t, and didn’t take him seriously as a legitimate threat to Clinton; his voters didn’t worry too much about each individual shocking sound bite, but took him seriously as a candidate.

In a column published after Trump’s victory, Maureen Dowd of The New York Times pointed to Zito’s line as a “prescient” one, and it truly was—it describes not just the result of the election, but the problem with how the media embraced the polls. Pundits – and the public – took the polls literally.

(11-10-2016 04:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  OK, I will insert a bit about how I feel. Whenever I've disagreed with Obama in public over the last 8 years, very quickly some leftist has launched the racist allegation against me. Totally unsubstantiated and untrue, but that never counted for anything. And quite frankly, I'm pretty pissed off about it and tired of it.

My man, you have been attacking Obama ceaselessly for the last 8 and a half years on this very Quad. In that time, I remember exactly one time where others have characterized your views as racial in any way. That was me describing your past characterizations of Obama as "a drug-dealing street hustler" as "akin to saying McCain is like 'my crazy old uncle' or Romney 'a human-like android', except with racial overtones"*.

For reference, that was this thread. Everyone remembers that thread, right? Good times.

If you've been called a racist, it's not here. And it's _certainly_ not "whenever [you've] disagreed with Obama in public over the last 8 years."

*And for what it's worth, it was you who first brought racism into that discussion. You commented that you took exception to "the suggestions of racism". To that point, no such suggestions had been made. I had simply paraphrased your prior "drug-dealing street hustler" comments (along with other comments equating Obama to Hitler and a mentally deficient gardener from a movie) to put the lie to your claim of being upset that "politics has become a game of portraying the other side as horrible people, not debating the issues intelligently". No suggestions of race, racism or anything racial whatsoever.

(11-10-2016 08:12 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 04:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  OK, I will insert a bit about how I feel. Whenever I've disagreed with Obama in public over the last 8 years, very quickly some leftist has launched the racist allegation against me. Totally unsubstantiated and untrue, but that never counted for anything. And quite frankly, I'm pretty pissed off about it and tired of it.

My man, you have been attacking Obama ceaselessly for the last 8 and a half years on this very Quad. In that time, I remember exactly one time where others have characterized your views as racial in any way. That was me describing your past characterizations of Obama as "a drug-dealing street hustler" as "akin to saying McCain is like 'my crazy old uncle' or Romney 'a human-like android', except with racial overtones"*.
For reference, that was this thread. Everyone remembers that thread, right? Good times.
If you've been called a racist, it's not here. And it's _certainly_ not "whenever [you've] disagreed with Obama in public over the last 8 years."
*And for what it's worth, it was you who first brought racism into that discussion. You commented that you took exception to "the suggestions of racism". To that point, no such suggestions had been made. I had simply paraphrased your prior "drug-dealing street hustler" comments (along with other comments equating Obama to Hitler and a mentally deficient gardener from a movie) to put the lie to your claim of being upset that "politics has become a game of portraying the other side as horrible people, not debating the issues intelligently". No suggestions of race, racism or anything racial whatsoever.

Bottom line, this is the kind of crap that cost your party the presidency and control of the senate.

You can rethink your approach, or you can keep calling everybody who disagrees racist or homophobic or misogynist or xenophobic. The latter is not conducive to any productive activity.

(11-10-2016 08:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 08:12 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 04:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  OK, I will insert a bit about how I feel. Whenever I've disagreed with Obama in public over the last 8 years, very quickly some leftist has launched the racist allegation against me. Totally unsubstantiated and untrue, but that never counted for anything. And quite frankly, I'm pretty pissed off about it and tired of it.

My man, you have been attacking Obama ceaselessly for the last 8 and a half years on this very Quad. In that time, I remember exactly one time where others have characterized your views as racial in any way. That was me describing your past characterizations of Obama as "a drug-dealing street hustler" as "akin to saying McCain is like 'my crazy old uncle' or Romney 'a human-like android', except with racial overtones"*.
For reference, that was this thread. Everyone remembers that thread, right? Good times.
If you've been called a racist, it's not here. And it's _certainly_ not "whenever [you've] disagreed with Obama in public over the last 8 years."
*And for what it's worth, it was you who first brought racism into that discussion. You commented that you took exception to "the suggestions of racism". To that point, no such suggestions had been made. I had simply paraphrased your prior "drug-dealing street hustler" comments (along with other comments equating Obama to Hitler and a mentally deficient gardener from a movie) to put the lie to your claim of being upset that "politics has become a game of portraying the other side as horrible people, not debating the issues intelligently". No suggestions of race, racism or anything racial whatsoever.

Yes, I have attacked Obama many times over the last 8+ years. I think he's a socialist/communist, and his ideas are quite frankly frightening. Had he been able to enact much of his agenda, I fear we'd be in far worse shape today. I hope we move away from everything he wanted us to be. To be fair, I think the racist allegations have been more prevalent on other boards, but there have been a few on here too.

There was noting racial in any of those comments. The drug-dealing street hustlers to whom I compared him (and to this day he still reminds me of them) were almost all white, as I think I mentioned at the time, so hard to see how that is a racially charged statement. As for Chance the Gardener, the comparison was how his followers fawned all over everything he said, no matter how stupid. And the comparison to Hitler was that the scene at Mile High Stadium reminded me of Nuremberg (still does when I see photos).

Oh, hell, why am I even trying to discuss this? You have no interest in doing anything but regarding your agenda.

So we're in agreement that you've been able to disagree with Obama repeatedly here for 8+ years with little to no suggestion of racism coming from the liberals?

Huh, it seems that you substantially edited your post while I was responding to it. I'm not quite sure what to do about that, because my response was written specifically in reply to a part you edited out.

I guess I'll just leave my comment as-is.

(11-10-2016 08:42 PM)JOwl Wrote:  So we're in agreement that you've been able to disagree with Obama repeatedly here for 8+ years with little to no suggestion of racism coming from the liberals?

No, we are not in agreement with regard to "little or no suggestion of racism." That's not what I wrote, and I don't agree with it. I don't really know how many of the accusations were on here, versus how many were in the Spin Room or the Memphis Political-Religious Board (two other places where I visit and post), and I'm sure as hell not going to waste time going back thread by thread to count, but I certainly got the racist attacks all three places.

And I'm getting them from you now. BTW, something that I posted at some point in response to the suggestions of racism in my characterizations of Obama, the street hustlers to whom I compared him were in fact all white, and Chance the Gardner was played by Peter Sellers. The comparison with Chance was not so much Obama to Gardner as it was the fawning adoration by followers of every word that came out of either mouth. No, I don't see anything racial in either of those. I suppose I'm just not as enlightened as you are.

(11-10-2016 10:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  "...you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. "



Paraphrasing:

You could put half of Hillary's supporters into what I call the basket of "entitled snobs".
Right? The ones who think they are intellectually and morally superior, -you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that.

Well, if you think you are not an entitled snob who thinks he is intellectually and morally superior to those poor dolts who voted Trump, then ignore that. Clearly I wasn't talking about you, just those people standing with you.

Man, whatever happened, to the good old OptmisticOwl, who was willing to call a spade a spade? Y'know, this guy:

(10-31-2008 04:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think we saw plenty of racism in the Democratic primaries when the black Democrats would vote over 90% for Obama and the white Democrats would vote over 75% for Hillary. Racism must have played a part in that kind of disparity.

I know of two yellow dog Democrats who will be staying home rather than vote for a black man. This will be the first time since 1934 they haven't voted a straight democratic ticket. I doubt they are the only ones.

There are racists voting on both sides of this race.

IMO, basing your vote on race is racist, whether it is a vote FOR or a vote AGAINST a particular candidate, and whether the candidate in question is black, white, or other.

I have voted for a black man for president twice before, so I don't care a lot about "making history". I did not make it three times this election because of his policies, not his race.

(11-10-2016 08:44 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Huh, it seems that you substantially edited your post while I was responding to it. I'm not quite sure what to do about that, because my response was written specifically in reply to a part you edited out.

I guess I'll just leave my comment as-is.

Actually, I erased it and then rewrote it. Sorry about that. I saw your comment and replied to it.

Let me be clear. I disagree totally with Donald Trump on each of his three major planks--Muslims, Mexicans, and free trade. I voted for Hillary in the primary, and didn't vote for either Trump or Hillary in the general. I'm no fan of Trump. What I have been trying to explain is not how I feel, but how the people in PA, OH, MI, and WI feel, and why they voted against her.

(11-10-2016 08:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 08:42 PM)JOwl Wrote:  So we're in agreement that you've been able to disagree with Obama repeatedly here for 8+ years with little to no suggestion of racism coming from the liberals?

No, we are not in agreement with regard to "little or no suggestion of racism." I don't really know how many of the accusations were on here, versus how many were in the Spin Room or the Memphis Political-Religious Board (two other places where I visit and post), and I'm sure as hell not going to waste time going back thread by thread to count, but I certainly got the racist attacks all three places.

And I'm getting them from you now. BTW, something that I posted at some point in response to the suggestions of racism in my characterizations of Obama, the street hustlers to whom I compared him were in fact all white, and Chance the Gardner was played by Peter Sellers. The comparison with Chance was not so much Obama to Gardner as it was the fawning adoration by followers of every word that came out of either mouth. No, I don't see anything racial in either of those. I suppose I'm just not as enlightened as you are.

Bear in mind I was replying to a post that you have since deleted. A post wherein you stated "Yes, I have attacked Obama many times over the last 8+ years. ... To be fair, I think the racist allegations have been more prevalent on other boards, but there have been a few on here too."

Specifically, my response was to your suggestion that there have been "a few" on here, which roughly corresponds to the one that I remember. I thought we were in agreement.

(11-10-2016 08:58 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Bear in mind I was replying to a post that you have since deleted. A post wherein you stated "Yes, I have attacked Obama many times over the last 8+ years. ... To be fair, I think the racist allegations have been more prevalent on other boards, but there have been a few on here too."
Specifically, my response was to your suggestion that there have been "a few" on here, which roughly corresponds to the one that I remember. I thought we were in agreement.

In what language does "a few" = "one"?

This is really getting pretty silly.

(11-10-2016 08:51 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 10:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  "...you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. "



Paraphrasing:

You could put half of Hillary's supporters into what I call the basket of "entitled snobs".
Right? The ones who think they are intellectually and morally superior, -you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that.

Well, if you think you are not an entitled snob who thinks he is intellectually and morally superior to those poor dolts who voted Trump, then ignore that. Clearly I wasn't talking about you, just those people standing with you.

Man, whatever happened, to the good old OptmisticOwl, who was willing to call a spade a spade? Y'know, this guy:

(10-31-2008 04:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think we saw plenty of racism in the Democratic primaries when the black Democrats would vote over 90% for Obama and the white Democrats would vote over 75% for Hillary. Racism must have played a part in that kind of disparity.

I know of two yellow dog Democrats who will be staying home rather than vote for a black man. This will be the first time since 1934 they haven't voted a straight democratic ticket. I doubt they are the only ones.

There are racists voting on both sides of this race.

IMO, basing your vote on race is racist, whether it is a vote FOR or a vote AGAINST a particular candidate, and whether the candidate in question is black, white, or other.

I have voted for a black man for president twice before, so I don't care a lot about "making history". I did not make it three times this election because of his policies, not his race.

Calling a spade a spade? Do I hear a dog whistle?

But to answer your question, AFAIK, I have not changed. I still see a lot of racism in the left side, which is not the same as saying I see none on the right, or that I see none anywhere. The racism from the left is not as overt, nor is it toward the same targets, but it is there. Leftist racism is kinder and gentler - almost paternal. But still, racism. That's my opinion, anyway.

When do we start calling him Comrade Trump?

Weird news story to break: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2...paign.html