I think deeming "rat-infested" as racist is in fact a mischaracterization. But it is on every news channel as a racist statement. Some channels more than others.
They act as though one could eat off the floors in the Seventh District, it is so clean.

My backyard is deer infested at dusk. How racist of me! Clearly my racist statement was meant to demean people with skin colors close to buckskin. Or not so close, maybe.

THAT is the kind of reach needed to make it a racist statement, yet the left is pulling in unison to deem it so. Great teamwork. Go Blue!

(07-30-2019 03:52 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 03:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 03:28 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 03:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 03:01 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  How on earth do you get that from what I wrote? Are you deliberately misrepresenting my statements?

Because you just said that the reason why Democrats were outraged over Trump's tweets is because they want to cover up the failures of the Democrats running Baltimore...

The media and congressional outrage is faux outrage, yes. Theater. Those who actually believe the mischaracterization of the tweet might be genuinely outraged.

So again, your thesis is that the outrage over Trump's tweet isn't justified in the slightest? Unless the slightest is people being hoodwinked by what you deem a mischaracterization?

I don't see why you got so offended at my question...

Offended? I'm not offended. I am puzzled why it's so important to you to have the question of "justification" answered. I'm also not going to be maneuvered into saying people aren't entitled to their (legitimate) emotions.

Faux outrage is inherently unjustified. What conceivable justification could there be for pretending to be outraged?

My point is there is legitimate reason to be outraged at Trump's tweet - that it is not solely faux outrage or based on being used as a distraction.

I asked if you felt that people were justified in their reaction to Trump's tweets because a central component of that piece was that the outrage was real and justified. You seem to disagree with that central component of the piece, which basically throws the entire purpose of the article out the window, and I thought the article provided a good perspective.

I'm not trying to maneuver you into trying to deny people their right to an opinion - I'm trying to ask whether or not you personally think there is justification for any of the outrage over what Trump tweeted. Seems as if you don't think there is any justification, and yet, you asked me if I was deliberately misinterpreting your statements to get to the point.

The closest you've gotten to saying whether or not you think there is justification for the response, is that you think some people might be outraged over what you call a mischaracterization.

(07-30-2019 02:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 02:16 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  https://www.newsweek.com/trump-may-crude...on-1451772

"To understand how bad things really are, Baltimore's homicide rate in 2018 was 56 per 100,000 people. That tops 50.3 per 100,000 in El Salvador."

Really good piece that hits the nail on the head regarding this whole fiasco:

Quote:Though it is perfectly legitimate to express outrage over Trump's tweet, it's equally legitimate to talk about the failed leadership by Democrats of this once-great city. And how a different philosophical outlook—a different way of approaching problems—might be in order.

Our leaders—Republicans and Democrats alike—must do better. Trump must do better. Because young lives hang in the balance. And they deserve so much more than they're getting given the federal, state and local dollars being spent on their behalf.

I thought this part was more telling of the desirability of Baltimore as a place to live:

In 1950, Baltimore was home to about 950,000 residents. By 2010, that number plunged to 620,000. The estimates for 2018 hovered around 602,000.

That's not a population loss. That's an exodus.

(07-30-2019 04:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 03:52 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 03:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 03:28 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 03:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Because you just said that the reason why Democrats were outraged over Trump's tweets is because they want to cover up the failures of the Democrats running Baltimore...

The media and congressional outrage is faux outrage, yes. Theater. Those who actually believe the mischaracterization of the tweet might be genuinely outraged.

So again, your thesis is that the outrage over Trump's tweet isn't justified in the slightest? Unless the slightest is people being hoodwinked by what you deem a mischaracterization?

I don't see why you got so offended at my question...

Offended? I'm not offended. I am puzzled why it's so important to you to have the question of "justification" answered. I'm also not going to be maneuvered into saying people aren't entitled to their (legitimate) emotions.

Faux outrage is inherently unjustified. What conceivable justification could there be for pretending to be outraged?

My point is there is legitimate reason to be outraged at Trump's tweet - that it is not solely faux outrage or based on being used as a distraction.

I asked if you felt that people were justified in their reaction to Trump's tweets because a central component of that piece was that the outrage was real and justified. You seem to disagree with that central component of the piece, which basically throws the entire purpose of the article out the window, and I thought the article provided a good perspective.

I'm not trying to maneuver you into trying to deny people their right to an opinion - I'm trying to ask whether or not you personally think there is justification for any of the outrage over what Trump tweeted. Seems as if you don't think there is any justification, and yet, you asked me if I was deliberately misinterpreting your statements to get to the point.

The closest you've gotten to saying whether or not you think there is justification for the response, is that you think some people might be outraged over what you call a mischaracterization.

I'm not a mind reader, Lad. I can't possibly know if any given person's emotional response throughout the U.S. is real or fake. It does stand to reason that those who are twisting Trump's words into an accusation of racism can only be faking their outrage, because if the accusation is false then it follows logically that their response is fake. It also stands to reason that anyone who doesn't really believe Trump is a racist, yet is acting outraged by his racism, must also be faking it.

(07-30-2019 04:12 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 04:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 03:52 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 03:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 03:28 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  The media and congressional outrage is faux outrage, yes. Theater. Those who actually believe the mischaracterization of the tweet might be genuinely outraged.

So again, your thesis is that the outrage over Trump's tweet isn't justified in the slightest? Unless the slightest is people being hoodwinked by what you deem a mischaracterization?

I don't see why you got so offended at my question...

Offended? I'm not offended. I am puzzled why it's so important to you to have the question of "justification" answered. I'm also not going to be maneuvered into saying people aren't entitled to their (legitimate) emotions.

Faux outrage is inherently unjustified. What conceivable justification could there be for pretending to be outraged?

My point is there is legitimate reason to be outraged at Trump's tweet - that it is not solely faux outrage or based on being used as a distraction.

I asked if you felt that people were justified in their reaction to Trump's tweets because a central component of that piece was that the outrage was real and justified. You seem to disagree with that central component of the piece, which basically throws the entire purpose of the article out the window, and I thought the article provided a good perspective.

I'm not trying to maneuver you into trying to deny people their right to an opinion - I'm trying to ask whether or not you personally think there is justification for any of the outrage over what Trump tweeted. Seems as if you don't think there is any justification, and yet, you asked me if I was deliberately misinterpreting your statements to get to the point.

The closest you've gotten to saying whether or not you think there is justification for the response, is that you think some people might be outraged over what you call a mischaracterization.

I'm not a mind reader, Lad. I can't possibly know if any given person's emotional response throughout the U.S. is real or fake. It does stand to reason that those who are twisting Trump's words into an accusation of racism can only be faking their outrage, because if the accusation is false then it follows logically that their response is fake. It also stands to reason that anyone who doesn't really believe Trump is a racist, yet is acting outraged by his racism, must also be faking it.

Ergo - you don't think that any outrage towards Trump's tweet is justified...

You forgot that last sentence, but at least we got there. It's your prerogative to think that the outrage isn't justified, I just don't get why you pushed back on me suggesting that you felt it wasn't justified.

Maybe we're talking about two different things as well? I realize now that you might be just focused on the potential racist component of it, and I'm not at the moment. The author of the article makes some good points about the entirety of Trump's series of tweets, independent of the potential racist implications.

(07-30-2019 04:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 04:12 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 04:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 03:52 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 03:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So again, your thesis is that the outrage over Trump's tweet isn't justified in the slightest? Unless the slightest is people being hoodwinked by what you deem a mischaracterization?

I don't see why you got so offended at my question...

Offended? I'm not offended. I am puzzled why it's so important to you to have the question of "justification" answered. I'm also not going to be maneuvered into saying people aren't entitled to their (legitimate) emotions.

Faux outrage is inherently unjustified. What conceivable justification could there be for pretending to be outraged?

My point is there is legitimate reason to be outraged at Trump's tweet - that it is not solely faux outrage or based on being used as a distraction.

I asked if you felt that people were justified in their reaction to Trump's tweets because a central component of that piece was that the outrage was real and justified. You seem to disagree with that central component of the piece, which basically throws the entire purpose of the article out the window, and I thought the article provided a good perspective.

I'm not trying to maneuver you into trying to deny people their right to an opinion - I'm trying to ask whether or not you personally think there is justification for any of the outrage over what Trump tweeted. Seems as if you don't think there is any justification, and yet, you asked me if I was deliberately misinterpreting your statements to get to the point.

The closest you've gotten to saying whether or not you think there is justification for the response, is that you think some people might be outraged over what you call a mischaracterization.

I'm not a mind reader, Lad. I can't possibly know if any given person's emotional response throughout the U.S. is real or fake. It does stand to reason that those who are twisting Trump's words into an accusation of racism can only be faking their outrage, because if the accusation is false then it follows logically that their response is fake. It also stands to reason that anyone who doesn't really believe Trump is a racist, yet is acting outraged by his racism, must also be faking it.

Ergo - you don't think that any outrage towards Trump's tweet is justified...

You forgot that last sentence, but at least we got there. It's your prerogative to think that the outrage isn't justified, I just don't get why you pushed back on me suggesting that you felt it wasn't justified.

Maybe we're talking about two different things as well? I realize now that you might be just focused on the potential racist component of it, and I'm not at the moment. The author of the article makes some good points about the entirety of Trump's series of tweets, independent of the potential racist implications.

You're putting words in my mouth.

(07-30-2019 04:32 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 04:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 04:12 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 04:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 03:52 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Offended? I'm not offended. I am puzzled why it's so important to you to have the question of "justification" answered. I'm also not going to be maneuvered into saying people aren't entitled to their (legitimate) emotions.

Faux outrage is inherently unjustified. What conceivable justification could there be for pretending to be outraged?

My point is there is legitimate reason to be outraged at Trump's tweet - that it is not solely faux outrage or based on being used as a distraction.

I asked if you felt that people were justified in their reaction to Trump's tweets because a central component of that piece was that the outrage was real and justified. You seem to disagree with that central component of the piece, which basically throws the entire purpose of the article out the window, and I thought the article provided a good perspective.

I'm not trying to maneuver you into trying to deny people their right to an opinion - I'm trying to ask whether or not you personally think there is justification for any of the outrage over what Trump tweeted. Seems as if you don't think there is any justification, and yet, you asked me if I was deliberately misinterpreting your statements to get to the point.

The closest you've gotten to saying whether or not you think there is justification for the response, is that you think some people might be outraged over what you call a mischaracterization.

I'm not a mind reader, Lad. I can't possibly know if any given person's emotional response throughout the U.S. is real or fake. It does stand to reason that those who are twisting Trump's words into an accusation of racism can only be faking their outrage, because if the accusation is false then it follows logically that their response is fake. It also stands to reason that anyone who doesn't really believe Trump is a racist, yet is acting outraged by his racism, must also be faking it.

Ergo - you don't think that any outrage towards Trump's tweet is justified...

You forgot that last sentence, but at least we got there. It's your prerogative to think that the outrage isn't justified, I just don't get why you pushed back on me suggesting that you felt it wasn't justified.

Maybe we're talking about two different things as well? I realize now that you might be just focused on the potential racist component of it, and I'm not at the moment. The author of the article makes some good points about the entirety of Trump's series of tweets, independent of the potential racist implications.

You're putting words in my mouth.

So let me get this straight, you do think people are justified in their outrage over Trump's tweets about Baltimore?

(07-30-2019 04:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 04:32 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 04:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 04:12 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 04:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My point is there is legitimate reason to be outraged at Trump's tweet - that it is not solely faux outrage or based on being used as a distraction.

I asked if you felt that people were justified in their reaction to Trump's tweets because a central component of that piece was that the outrage was real and justified. You seem to disagree with that central component of the piece, which basically throws the entire purpose of the article out the window, and I thought the article provided a good perspective.

I'm not trying to maneuver you into trying to deny people their right to an opinion - I'm trying to ask whether or not you personally think there is justification for any of the outrage over what Trump tweeted. Seems as if you don't think there is any justification, and yet, you asked me if I was deliberately misinterpreting your statements to get to the point.

The closest you've gotten to saying whether or not you think there is justification for the response, is that you think some people might be outraged over what you call a mischaracterization.

I'm not a mind reader, Lad. I can't possibly know if any given person's emotional response throughout the U.S. is real or fake. It does stand to reason that those who are twisting Trump's words into an accusation of racism can only be faking their outrage, because if the accusation is false then it follows logically that their response is fake. It also stands to reason that anyone who doesn't really believe Trump is a racist, yet is acting outraged by his racism, must also be faking it.

Ergo - you don't think that any outrage towards Trump's tweet is justified...

You forgot that last sentence, but at least we got there. It's your prerogative to think that the outrage isn't justified, I just don't get why you pushed back on me suggesting that you felt it wasn't justified.

Maybe we're talking about two different things as well? I realize now that you might be just focused on the potential racist component of it, and I'm not at the moment. The author of the article makes some good points about the entirety of Trump's series of tweets, independent of the potential racist implications.

You're putting words in my mouth.

So let me get this straight, you do think people are justified in their outrage over Trump's tweets about Baltimore?

I've rephrased a couple of times and it isn't working. You continue to misinterpret, so whether the failure to communicate is yours or mine, this is pointless. I think perhaps you want an absolute and binary answer to a question that can only be answered to the effect of "yes in some cases, no in others," and that's what I've been trying to communicate.

(07-30-2019 04:56 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 04:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 04:32 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 04:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 04:12 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I'm not a mind reader, Lad. I can't possibly know if any given person's emotional response throughout the U.S. is real or fake. It does stand to reason that those who are twisting Trump's words into an accusation of racism can only be faking their outrage, because if the accusation is false then it follows logically that their response is fake. It also stands to reason that anyone who doesn't really believe Trump is a racist, yet is acting outraged by his racism, must also be faking it.

Ergo - you don't think that any outrage towards Trump's tweet is justified...

You forgot that last sentence, but at least we got there. It's your prerogative to think that the outrage isn't justified, I just don't get why you pushed back on me suggesting that you felt it wasn't justified.

Maybe we're talking about two different things as well? I realize now that you might be just focused on the potential racist component of it, and I'm not at the moment. The author of the article makes some good points about the entirety of Trump's series of tweets, independent of the potential racist implications.

You're putting words in my mouth.

So let me get this straight, you do think people are justified in their outrage over Trump's tweets about Baltimore?

I've rephrased a couple of times and it isn't working. You continue to misinterpret, so whether the failure to communicate is yours or mine, this is pointless. I think perhaps you want an absolute and binary answer to a question that can only be answered to the effect of "yes in some cases, no in others," and that's what I've been trying to communicate.

That wasn't clear at all given that your responses only focused on reactions that were based on intentional deception or something you consider to be untrue (and therefore not justifiable).

(07-30-2019 12:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 12:38 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Remember this?
Solyndra
Lines all blurred between lobbyists and government officials; investors with direct ties to DOE officials, all the same sort of thing going on. And the Solyndra affair didn't even start with Obama; but with Bush. I'm not defending it, I'm just saying that the media and the Democrats have been ok with it for decades - until now.

The media has been OK with for decades.
Posts article from mainstream media outlet reporting on the exact issue that apparently the media has been OK with...

But the media didn't report on it for years. That's the part that says they were okay with it.

There are things Donald Trump could say to which I would find it okay for people to object. Calling a rat- and rodent-infested sh**hole a "rat- and rodent-infested mess" isn't one of them.

(07-30-2019 04:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 02:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 02:16 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  https://www.newsweek.com/trump-may-crude...on-1451772

"To understand how bad things really are, Baltimore's homicide rate in 2018 was 56 per 100,000 people. That tops 50.3 per 100,000 in El Salvador."

Really good piece that hits the nail on the head regarding this whole fiasco:

Quote:Though it is perfectly legitimate to express outrage over Trump's tweet, it's equally legitimate to talk about the failed leadership by Democrats of this once-great city. And how a different philosophical outlook—a different way of approaching problems—might be in order.

I'm not sure how "great" it ever was. For about 2/3 of the 19th century, Baltimore was known for its abnormally high incidence of political violence and mob rule -- it was a notorious outlier in that regard.

All cities are different, but Baltimore seems to have always been one of the strangest in the US.

Make Baltimore Great Again

Baltimore Ascends to Greatness Again

BAGA!!!!!

Since using the term "infested" is now a racial trigger ---

Here is another politician using the term to describe Baltimore (literally, using the word). Funny thing, take deep note whom he is, *and* what color his skin is.

Might be good for a chuckle from the 'infested == racist' clan. Maybe not.

bad news

payrolls increased 164,000

Wages also continued to increase,

Economists had expected the unemployment rate to drop to 3.6%, which would have tied a 50-year low, but an influx of 370,000 new workers to the labor force brought the participation rate up to 63%, its highest since March.

Along with that, a broader measure of unemployment that accounts for discouraged workers and the underemployed, sometimes called the "real" unemployment rate, dropped to 7%, its lowest since December 2000.

the data also showed that companies are continuing to hire despite persistent fears of a broader economic slowdown


Yes, Virginia, the economy will turn south again someday. A straight shot upward is not how economies work. The prayer for Democrats is that this happens before election day 2020. They need pain and misery, joblessness and hopelessness and if that that is what it takes to get Trump out and a Democrat, any democrat, in, then they are all for it.

New Campaign slogan for the Dems: Vote ___________, s(he) will reverse the prosperity and be polite when speaking"

(07-30-2019 04:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So let me get this straight, you do think people are justified in their outrage over Trump's tweets about Baltimore?

I didn't quote it here, but the term 'any' justification is incredibly open-ended. There is SOME justification for just about anything. If someone honestly believes something to be true (even if it is not) then it has SOME justification. The question here is whether the justification somehow negates the point.

The clearly justified outrage over Trump is his insistence on being socially aggressive, even when it seems to serve no real purpose and sometimes even seems counter-productive. Of course, if there is a good enough reason that I can't imagine and he hasn't articulated, maybe even that outrage isn't justified... but I think most who lean right but don't like Trump would agree with this....

That said... I've yet to see (though I am open to see it) any real proof of Trump as a racist. I asked someone once for his proof and he gave me some 1970's housing dispute and an unsubstantiated claim from a 'tell all' book read on the house floor, as if that somehow made it fact.... followed by a decent number of things that if you held them 'just so' and assumed a lot of facts not in evidence, COULD be argued (not proved) to support such an opinion.

If you have more, I'd love to see it. I don't like the guy one bit... but I don't hate ALL of his politics, only some.... but being against illegal immigration... being against a permanent under-class.... being against poorly run cities filled with obvious issues does not make someone racist. It comes from believing that people of color are ALL 'beneath' you.... not that an individual person of color is, but that an entire race is.

(07-30-2019 04:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So let me get this straight, you do think people are justified in their outrage over Trump's tweets about Baltimore?

I didn't quote it here, but the term 'any' justification is incredibly open-ended. There is SOME justification for just about anything. If someone honestly believes something to be true (even if it is not) then it has SOME justification. The question here is whether the justification somehow negates the point.

The clearly justified outrage over Trump is his insistence on being socially aggressive, even when it seems to serve no real purpose and sometimes even seems counter-productive. Of course, if there is a good enough reason that I can't imagine and he hasn't articulated, maybe even that outrage isn't justified... but I think most who lean right but don't like Trump would agree with this....

That said... I've yet to see (though I am open to see it) any real proof of Trump as a racist. I asked someone once for his proof and he gave me some 1970's housing dispute and an unsubstantiated claim from a 'tell all' book read on the house floor, as if that somehow made it fact.... followed by a decent number of things that if you held them 'just so' and assumed a lot of facts not in evidence, COULD be argued (not proved) to support such an opinion.

If you have more, I'd love to see it. I don't like the guy one bit... but I don't hate ALL of his politics, only some.... but being against illegal immigration... being against a permanent under-class.... being against poorly run cities filled with obvious issues does not make someone racist. It comes from believing that people of color are ALL 'beneath' you.... not that an individual person of color is, but that an entire race is.

I haven't seen proof that he believes that, though I'm very willing to be informed.

I cannot find the part where we were talking about the interior immigration checkpoints. The ones 20 to 40 miles inside the US.

Many of the victims and potential victims at the Cielo Vista mall/Wal Mart were mexicans who came across the river to shop. Merchants in both sister cities all along the border rely on this mixing of the the two sides for volume.

It would not be possible with the interior checkpoints. Without those, much more stringent procedures at the actual border would have to be implemented. Having the interior checkpoints allows a much freer mixing of the citizens of both countries at the frontier.

(07-30-2019 04:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So let me get this straight, you do think people are justified in their outrage over Trump's tweets about Baltimore?

Not really. I don't see what is outrageous about correctly describing a rat-infested mess as a rat-infested mess.

Trump says and does things that I don't like. This is not one of them.