WWTBAM Bored

ABC reporter just talked about Trump's racist tweets, 5:30 news. Not Trump's tweets. Racist tweets. That is not reporting, it's commenting. And you wonder why some question media?

I no longer wonder. Wander, perhaps, but not wonder.

It's just factual reporting. Criticizing Americans because of where their ancestors came from is the textbook definition of a racist comment. That's not just my opinion; Paul Ryan said it in 2016, and a number of Republicans have repeated it recently, even though they can't stand the Squad. It's about time journalists stop using euphemisms and call a spade a spade. (Uh oh, bad word choice!)

jarnon wrote:It's just factual reporting. Criticizing Americans because of where their ancestors came from is the textbook definition of a racist comment. That's not just my opinion; Paul Ryan said it in 2016, and a number of Republicans have repeated it recently, even though they can't stand the Squad. It's about time journalists stop using euphemisms and call a spade a spade. (Uh oh, bad word choice!)

Reporting should not include evaluation. You've lost your "measured" status. Unfortunate.

tlynn78 wrote:I no longer wonder. Wander, perhaps, but not wonder.

As my favorite T-Shirt says-"Not all who wander are lost."

jarnon wrote:Criticizing Americans because of where their ancestors came from is the textbook definition of a racist comment.

If the inhabitants of these countries are of a single race, then, yes. But, to my knowledge, they're not.

If someone says, "I hate the God-damn British!", is that racist?

Estonut wrote:

jarnon wrote:Criticizing Americans because of where their ancestors came from is the textbook definition of a racist comment.

If the inhabitants of these countries are of a single race, then, yes. But, to my knowledge, they're not.


If someone says, "I hate the God-damn British!", is that racist?

I got Norwegian in my background. Fucking lefse.

Estonut wrote:

jarnon wrote:Criticizing Americans because of where their ancestors came from is the textbook definition of a racist comment.

If the inhabitants of these countries are of a single race, then, yes. But, to my knowledge, they're not.

If someone says, "I hate the God-damn British!", is that racist?

Trump's comment about "the countries they came from" seems to focus on Somalia. (I don't know where he thinks the other ladies are from, but the families of two of them have lived in America longer than the Trumps.) So I'd call it racist. If Obama said that about a Somali-American, I'd have to call it prejudice based on national origin rather than race, but it's still bigoted.

jarnon wrote:

Estonut wrote:

jarnon wrote:Criticizing Americans because of where their ancestors came from is the textbook definition of a racist comment.

If the inhabitants of these countries are of a single race, then, yes. But, to my knowledge, they're not.

If someone says, "I hate the God-damn British!", is that racist?

Trump's comment about "the countries they came from" seems to focus on Somalia. (I don't know where he thinks the other ladies are from, but the families of two of them have lived in America longer than the Trumps.) So I'd call it racist. If Obama said that about a Somali-American, I'd have to call it prejudice based on national origin rather than race, but it's still bigoted.

Do you not see how skewed your view is?
Sorry. We are doomed. Y'all have defined racism and bigotry to a tee. Sorry I was born white.

Criticizing a country or political situation or shithole status is not racist just like complimenting a country is not pandering to the race of people.

Shithole status has nothing to do with race. Culture perhaps. A culture generally drives what a country becomes. Not always though. Saying the projects in Chicago is a shithole is just stating fact.

BackInTex wrote:Criticizing a country or political situation or shithole status is not racist just like complimenting a country is not pandering to the race of people.

Shithole status has nothing to do with race. Culture perhaps. A culture generally drives what a country becomes. Not always though. Saying the projects in Chicago is a shithole is just stating fact.

Trump's done all that, and I didn't cry racism. But IMHO insulting Americans' country of origin, when they've lived here all or most of their lives, crosses a line.

BackInTex wrote:Criticizing a country or political situation or shithole status is not racist just like complimenting a country is not pandering to the race of people.

Shithole status has nothing to do with race. Culture perhaps. A culture generally drives what a country becomes. Not always though. Saying the projects in Chicago is a shithole is just stating fact.

I think what people are considering racist in this case is singling out these particular elected members of Congress as being not American. Why these particular four (who are as American as you or me or him)? He never told Hillary Clinton or John McCain or any reporter he didn't like to go back to where they came from.

Why these particular four? Do they have something in common his myriad other critics don't?

jarnon wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Criticizing a country or political situation or shithole status is not racist just like complimenting a country is not pandering to the race of people.

Shithole status has nothing to do with race. Culture perhaps. A culture generally drives what a country becomes. Not always though. Saying the projects in Chicago is a shithole is just stating fact.

Trump's done all that, and I didn't cry racism. But IMHO insulting Americans' country of origin, when they've lived here all or most of their lives, crosses a line.

Of course it crosses a line, just not the racism line.

You said, "Criticizing Americans because of where their ancestors came from is the textbook definition of a racist comment."

No, that's the textbook definition of a xenophobic comment. Bigoted, sure, but not racist.

Estonut wrote:

jarnon wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Criticizing a country or political situation or shithole status is not racist just like complimenting a country is not pandering to the race of people.

Shithole status has nothing to do with race. Culture perhaps. A culture generally drives what a country becomes. Not always though. Saying the projects in Chicago is a shithole is just stating fact.

Trump's done all that, and I didn't cry racism. But IMHO insulting Americans' country of origin, when they've lived here all or most of their lives, crosses a line.

Of course it crosses a line, just not the racism line.

You said, "Criticizing Americans because of where their ancestors came from is the textbook definition of a racist comment."

No, that's the textbook definition of a xenophobic comment. Bigoted, sure, but not racist.

Even his xenophobia is blurry. Two of the Congresswomen's families have been American longer than the Trumps. What countries was he thinking of?

And he insults anybody who doesn't kowtow to him, regardless of race, religion or nationality. So he's an equal-opportunity jerk.

Debating whether Trump's tweet meets the strict definition of "racist" is as pointless as arguing over what can be called a "concentration camp." I give up. I'm just fed up with him.

How about we just agree to skip the semantics and agree it was a shitty (and stupid) thing to tweet. The Dems were about to eat themselves again, and he just unified them like no other action could do.

Unless, of course, it was a calculated thing to distract from other headlines that were about to engulf him.

Estonut wrote:

jarnon wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Criticizing a country or political situation or shithole status is not racist just like complimenting a country is not pandering to the race of people.

Shithole status has nothing to do with race. Culture perhaps. A culture generally drives what a country becomes. Not always though. Saying the projects in Chicago is a shithole is just stating fact.

Trump's done all that, and I didn't cry racism. But IMHO insulting Americans' country of origin, when they've lived here all or most of their lives, crosses a line.

Of course it crosses a line, just not the racism line.

You said, "Criticizing Americans because of where their ancestors came from is the textbook definition of a racist comment."

No, that's the textbook definition of a xenophobic comment. Bigoted, sure, but not racist.

"Go back to where you came from" is literally the example regulations on workplace harassment use for the category "Harassment/national origin".

mrkelley23 wrote:How about we just agree to skip the semantics and agree it was a shitty (and stupid) thing to tweet. The Dems were about to eat themselves again, and he just unified them like no other action could do.

Unless, of course, it was a calculated thing to distract from other headlines that were about to engulf him.

Actually he's trying to make these four the face of the Democratic Party because he thinks they're so liberal and so different, they will motivate the coalition that came out for him last time to come out again.

It just might work.

It does show me there's probably no line he can't cross where his supporters won't defend him.

I believe Trump now when he says he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and his supporters wouldn't bat an eye.

He's right. They'd probably call the victim a socialist and say he/she deserved it.

Estonut wrote: You said, "Criticizing Americans because of where their ancestors came from is the textbook definition of a racist comment."

No, that's the textbook definition of a xenophobic comment. Bigoted, sure, but not racist.

Except that the four he criticized just happened to have dark skin. I doubt he would have said that about Norwegians; he loves Norwegians.

I was in a restaurant the other day (remember that I'm in southern Indiana -- the heart of Trump country) and overheard a conversation from another family. I couldn't help it -- they were not attempting to lower their voices. There was a TV on, and the network news was playing. The Epstein story had just broken. The wife said to the husband, "Oh, yes -- I heard about this. They said Clinton and Trump were both friends of this guy. The husband never batted an eye. Said, "Clinton, yes. But Trump? That's just fake news." The wife said, "No, it's true! They even said it on Fox News!"

This is how far we've fallen.

mrkelley23 wrote:I was in a restaurant the other day (remember that I'm in southern Indiana -- the heart of Trump country) and overheard a conversation from another family. I couldn't help it -- they were not attempting to lower their voices. There was a TV on, and the network news was playing. The Epstein story had just broken. The wife said to the husband, "Oh, yes -- I heard about this. They said Clinton and Trump were both friends of this guy. The husband never batted an eye. Said, "Clinton, yes. But Trump? That's just fake news." The wife said, "No, it's true! They even said it on Fox News!"

This is how far we've fallen.

A few days ago I had one of my high school classmates, now a business owner, refer to our most recent President as “Obama boy.” When I asked if she really intended to use the term “boy” to refer to President Obama, she repeated the phrase. Twice. I think that Donny has emboldened people to make this type of comment openly and I think he’s done it deliberately. It’s going to take a lot of work and a lot of time to stuff this particular genie back in the bottle.

And that’s why wild horses couldn’t pry me out of California. At least here I know that my neighbors and colleagues aren’t bigots. —Bob

Bob78164 wrote:And that’s why wild horses couldn’t pry me out of California. At least here I know that my neighbors and colleagues aren’t bigots.

Now, that's funny!

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote: You said, "Criticizing Americans because of where their ancestors came from is the textbook definition of a racist comment."

No, that's the textbook definition of a xenophobic comment. Bigoted, sure, but not racist.

Except that the four he criticized just happened to have dark skin. I doubt he would have said that about Norwegians; he loves Norwegians.

I'm 25% Norwegian. He doesn't love me.

Bob Juch wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: I doubt he would have said that about Norwegians; he loves Norwegians.

I'm 25% Norwegian. He doesn't love me.

The Norwegian 25% of you can stay; the rest will have to go.

Jeemie wrote:
Actually he's trying to make these four the face of the Democratic Party because he thinks they're so liberal and so different, they will motivate the coalition that came out for him last time to come out again.

It just might work.

I think that's a pretty good take on it.

T_Bone0806 wrote:

Jeemie wrote:
Actually he's trying to make these four the face of the Democratic Party because he thinks they're so liberal and so different, they will motivate the coalition that came out for him last time to come out again.

It just might work.

I think that's a pretty good take on it.

Actually, I agree. Tho you don't think anyone who voted for him is normal, we who did begrudgingly will remain. The screamy part of the base is just getting riled for good measure. Hopefully he wiil shut the fuck up a bit during actual election season. The crazy left will ensure his reelection.