(02-05-2017 09:02 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 09:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I have congressional contacts on both sides of the aisle who have told me that probably 90% of congress actually get along and understand the issues, and could resolve most of them if only we could lock the president and congressional leaders up long enough for them to do it. For example, back during the shutdown/sequester time frame, I heard from both sides of the aisle that the solution was easy if only we could get Obama and Reid and Pelosi and Boehner and McConnell to quit posturing and shut up.

If the problem is intransigent leadership, can't the supposed 90% of hunky-dory congresspeople just replace the intransigent leaders with less intransigent ones? Or perhaps Obama and Reid and Pelosi and Boehner (Ryan) and McConnell aren't the only ones posturing. Kind of like congressional Republicans being more than happy to send a million repeal-ACA bills to Obama when they were sure he would veto them, then "suddenly" having a serious case of buyer's remorse when they realized Trump might actually sign one of the damn things. It takes more than two congressional leaders to pass a bill.

(02-05-2017 08:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 05:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 04:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would venture to say that neither Richard Spencer nor David Duke would need to wait on any dog whistles before speaking up.

You're right that they don't need to. But that they have responded directly to some of the actions by the Trump administration. That is the key.

Lets sum this up:

Trump makes a statement
Spencer comments on that statement
Therefore there must be intentional dog whistles in Trump's statement....

With all due respect there is a *major* lack of substance and/or backing in that chain.

I guess anytime Spencer, or Duke, or Westboro (or anybody like that) comments on anything that Trump did or said, we will pretty much always expect from this time going forward that it is "obviously" dog whistles being blown intentionally expressly for that purpose; glad I have that figured out now.

So, setting aside the debate regarding whether this is an appropriate use of the term "dog whistle," RiceLad's larger point remains: Whom, exactly, was Trump trying to please/incite/pander to by conspicuously neglecting to mention "Jews" when addressing the Holocaust?

(Of course, this assumes the oversight was intentional. But, given Trump's apparent belief that Frederick Douglass is still alive, I suppose he might also be ignorant of the fact that the Holocaust involved Jews. If this is the case, well, sure, no dog-whistling is occurring and you win this debate ;-)

Whom, exactly, was Trump Obama trying to please/incite/pander to by conspicuously neglecting to mention "Jews" when addressing the Holocaust directly authoring, instigating a vote, and failing to veto the vote that sold out Israel as his "parting gift"?

Wow, what a dog whistle there......

Quote:Of course, this assumes the oversight and direct actions were intentional.

I ascribe it to an incompetent administration that doesnt seem to rationally know what the hell is going on, or really what do do for that matter (look at the rollout of the immigration fiasco for proof of that lack of competence....)

But, just easier to ascribe it to evil racists like every good liberal seems to want to do for just about every topic, I guess....