-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Birtherism 2.0: The Totally-Not-Racist Party Strikes Again
- Thread starter Left Coast
- Start date
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Yeah, I'm sure it's just a sheer coincidence that he regularly calls into question the nationality of politicians who aren't white.
And has a history of enacting racist housing policies.
And doesn't like black people working for him.
Can we stop the pretence to excuse racism as just ignorance, when you are completely aware that it is not? Come on, Rev, you're smarter than this.
I would think it depends on how one defines "racism":
rac·ist
/ˈrāsəst/
Learn to pronounce
noun
- a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
"the comments have led to her being called a racist"
Similar:
racial bigot
racialist
xenophobe
chauvinist
anti-Semite
(racially) discriminatory
prejudiced
prejudiced against us" data-hw="prejudiced" data-lb="" data-tae="false" data-te="false" data-tl="en-US" data-tldf="" data-url="/search?sxsrf=ALeKk036SIvfepjDk5DaiI-uoJLq7WhGMg:1597407185102&q=define+prejudiced&forcedict=prejudiced&dictcorpus=en-US">
bigoted
biased
intolerant
intolerant of ignorance" data-hw="intolerant" data-lb="" data-tae="false" data-te="false" data-tl="en-US" data-tldf="" data-url="/search?sxsrf=ALeKk036SIvfepjDk5DaiI-uoJLq7WhGMg:1597407185102&q=define+intolerant&forcedict=intolerant&dictcorpus=en-US">
illiberal
anti-Semitic
Opposite:
multicultural
tolerant
tolerant of others" data-hw="tolerant" data-lb="" data-tae="false" data-te="false" data-tl="en-US" data-tldf="" data-url="/search?sxsrf=ALeKk036SIvfepjDk5DaiI-uoJLq7WhGMg:1597407185102&q=define+tolerant&forcedict=tolerant&dictcorpus=en-US">
- showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another.
"we are investigating complaints about racist abuse at the club"
---
Has Trump ever indicated or implied that white people are superior to non-white people? Does Trump discriminate or show prejudice against all people of other races, or only some people of other races? If someone expresses dislike of an individual who happens to be a person of color, is it logical to assume that they dislike all people of color?
Senator McCain faced questions in the 2008 election, since he was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936. His parents were born in Iowa and Oklahoma. McCain’s father was a Navy admiral.
In 1880, Arthur ran as the vice presidential candidate on the James Garfield ticket for the Republican Party. Arthur became President after Garfield’s death in 1881 and there were rumors – spread by campaign rivals - that Arthur had been born in Canada, and not Vermont, as he claimed.
As a candidate for the 1968 presidency, Romney faced questions because he was born in Chihuahua, Mexico in 1907 at a Mormon colony. His parents were born in the Utah Territory before Utah became a state, and they were American citizens. Romney’s parents chose United States citizenship for their son. The Romneys left Mexico when George Romney was very young, due to the Mexican Revolution.
Five other presidential “birther” controversies from American history - National Constitution Center.
In 1880, Arthur ran as the vice presidential candidate on the James Garfield ticket for the Republican Party. Arthur became President after Garfield’s death in 1881 and there were rumors – spread by campaign rivals - that Arthur had been born in Canada, and not Vermont, as he claimed.
As a candidate for the 1968 presidency, Romney faced questions because he was born in Chihuahua, Mexico in 1907 at a Mormon colony. His parents were born in the Utah Territory before Utah became a state, and they were American citizens. Romney’s parents chose United States citizenship for their son. The Romneys left Mexico when George Romney was very young, due to the Mexican Revolution.
Five other presidential “birther” controversies from American history - National Constitution Center.
Yeah. The pattern is the evidence.
The pattern is plain as day, as the numerous examples I cited show. If you'd like even more, you might see:
Donald Trump’s long history of racism, from the 1970s to 2020
You might also research the reason we have birthright citizenship, and the groups who have persistently opposed it. Do you deny that racists and xenophobes have long championed eliminating birthright citizenship?
The ones you pointed out are dead now, most for decades, some since the 1800s.
Wrong, again. The pattern is more than birtherism.
Ted Cruz wasn't in your original list. Again, the example pales in comparison to Obama, whose legitimacy based on birthplace was questioned by a sizable number of rank-and-file Republicans, after they nominated and elected the guy most famous for promoting the idea.
I asked the relevant question about it, ie how widespread was the idea on the left. Your excuse was weak. Birthright citizenship was implemented with the 14th amendment, overruling the Dred Scott case to ensure that black people were considered citizens. Since then, racists have consistently opposed the concept, decrying "invasion" of black and brown people to our country. Have white people been occasionally and opportunistically challenged along these lines? Sure. But the thrust of opposition to birthright citizenship, like the thrust of people claiming our first black President was born in Kenya, is racism. That you can't see that is an issue you're gonna have to work out for yourself. Its plain as day to even a casual student of American politics.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
By this definition, the African slave trade was not racist, because it didn't enslave all non-white people. And Jim Crow laws weren't racist, because they were not specified to apply to all non-white people.
Arguing from a dictionary is always a pointless exercise.
Deflection is uninteresting.
I don't reward it with conversation.
I heard the same interview.
While over the top, it's an interesting perspective.
All radios in all my buildings are set to NPR (WUOM, & sometimes WEMU).
Btw, "interesting" is high praise from me.
it's perfectly clear to the skilled reader who saw the post I
responded to.
I will not.
Reason #1: You sound demanding. It seems like I'm expected
to perform like a trained seal.
Reason #2: It's a largely a meaningless label, so I avoid it.
Virtually everyone is racist to some degree, including vaunted
paragons of multi-culturalism like Obama. Many here on RF
who think of themselves as progressive &/or liberal have posted
racist, sexist, & otherwise bigoted things. Is calling them "racist"
useful? Nah.
Calling people "racist" is important to you & yours. But it's
unproductive because it's so often, carelessly, improperly, &
mischievously used, as is the case with the OP.
The rationale appears to be this....
1) Trump is a racist.
2) Therefore everything he says can be seen as racist.
3) if he said something, it's therefore racist.
4) This is further proof that he's racist.
It's a self fulfilling bias confirmation. That's how the bogus birther
argument proceeded, ie, assume that it's always racist, & ignore
the fact that white politicians have been subject to it even more.
You've not addressed any of that.
You're doing the same thing some other posters have tried, ie,
deflecting from the OP's poorly supported claim by trying to make
it about something else. Do you guys have some kind of union
wherein you all try the same ploy against anyone with the temerity
to call out bogus reasoning & claims?
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
In war "all bets are off" they say. Elections are war. Trump never went to the army, but he wants to show the world, that He knows how to "be on top".
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
IF Trump is a problem THEN the real problem is "all the people who vote for Trump"Trump, in my view, is not the central problem in the country today. Voting him out of office won't end the legacy he has legitimized in office. He is a symptom of a much more deep-rooted disease in the Republican Party.
(But voting him out is a start. Let's do it.)
John McCain isn't white?
My gawd, man....do so many of you really not know
the presidential campaign history of the last couple
decades? Even after I posted it, tis as though you're
blind to his existence, & the challenges to his eligibility.
You're using the same tactic as the others, ie,
ignoring what he said, & instead pointing to
other things.
This is a misrepresentation of my posts.
You know better. Why perpetrate this?
It would see that I'm smarter than you are.
I see the attempt to claim racism without supporting,
& by ignoring contrary evidence. Do you know who
John McCain is, & his history with Trump.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
"Quick, look over there!"
Meanwhile, in reality:
Sure, when you look at one POSSIBLY racist thing a person says, you could say it's just a simple lack of judgement.
But when a person CONSTANTLY says things that are quite blatantly racist, that's when you need to stop an acknowledge reality.
Again, Rev, you're smarter than this. Stop kidding yourself.
It's not misrepresentation at this point. You either acknowledge his racism, or you are wilfully and knowingly ignoring it.
Those are your two choices.
Not in a million years, Rev.
Funny. Earlier, you called me pointing out evidence as "pointing to other things".
That's what sane people call evidence, Rev. When trying to demonstrate that somebody is racist, bringing up their history of racism isn't a distraction. It's the whole point.
I don't care about irrelevant nonsense.
Do you admit Trump is racist?
Yes or no?
If you won't admit that Trump used birtherism against John McCain,Yeah. The pattern is the evidence.
The pattern is plain as day, as the numerous examples I cited show. If you'd like even more, you might see:
Donald Trump’s long history of racism, from the 1970s to 2020
You might also research the reason we have birthright citizenship, and the groups who have persistently opposed it. Do you deny that racists and xenophobes have long championed eliminating birthright citizenship?
The ones you pointed out are dead now, most for decades, some since the 1800s.
Wrong, again. The pattern is more than birtherism.
Ted Cruz wasn't in your original list. Again, the example pales in comparison to Obama, whose legitimacy based on birthplace was questioned by a sizable number of rank-and-file Republicans, after they nominated and elected the guy most famous for promoting the idea.
I asked the relevant question about it, ie how widespread was the idea on the left. Your excuse was weak. Birthright citizenship was implemented with the 14th amendment, overruling the Dred Scott case to ensure that black people were considered citizens. Since then, racists have consistently opposed the concept, decrying "invasion" of black and brown people to our country. Have white people been occasionally and opportunistically challenged along these lines? Sure. But the thrust of opposition to birthright citizenship, like the thrust of people claiming our first black President was born in Kenya, is racism. That you can't see that is an issue you're gonna have to work out for yourself. Its plain as day to even a casual student of American politics.
then your "pattern" is designed for the purpose of always seeing
racism when you want to.
We'll have to agree to disagree about not everything being racism.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
If Trump is not a racist then nobody is.
You're repeating yourself...& without improvement."Quick, look over there!"
Meanwhile, in reality:
Sure, when you look at one POSSIBLY racist thing a person says, you could say it's just a simple lack of judgement.
But when a person CONSTANTLY says things that are quite blatantly racist, that's when you need to stop an acknowledge reality.
Again, Rev, you're smarter than this. Stop kidding yourself.
It's not misrepresentation at this point. You either acknowledge his racism, or you are wilfully and knowingly ignoring it.
Those are your two choices.
Not in a million years, Rev.
Funny. Earlier, you called me pointing out evidence as "pointing to other things".
That's what sane people call evidence, Rev. When trying to demonstrate that somebody is racist, bringing up their history of racism isn't a distraction. It's the whole point.
I don't care about irrelevant nonsense.
Do you admit Trump is racist?
Yes or no?
Essentially, you claim that because Trump is a racist,
everything he says exemplifies his racism, regardless
of what he actually says. It's akin to religion, ie, every
Trump quote is proof of what you already believe.
You dismiss the John McCain birtherism as irrelevant
because it would ruin your story.
This is the worst kind of political bigotry.
Trump didn't use birtherism against John McCain. Some random law professor did. Did you even read your own sources? You're making things up.
Your silly strawmen of my actual position throughout this thread speak for themselves. Your position is irrational, as I've now repeatedly walked you through.
I meant Ted Cruz.
Too many posts...too little sleep...too many distractions.
Mistakes happen.
Irrational?
That would be your refusal to acknowledge birtherism
having been applied to white politicians. Sure, Trump
did it to Cruz, not McCain. But you cannot face this,
lest your claim evaporate. I sense your desperation.
Your projection is transparent.
I addressed the attack on Ted Cruz. It was a fart in the wind compared to the scope, intensity, and duration of the birtherism conspiracy against Obama. I've now twice walked you through this.
I've also explained how these birther attacks are part of a larger pattern of racist white identity politics, and gave ample evidence from Trump's past and the Right's past to support it.
I then mentioned to you the history of the 14th amendment, which is the reason we have birthright citizenship in this country. And which has had consistent opposition from people of one particular political/ideological stripe.
So no Rev, I'm not desperate. My analysis is clear-eyed and evidence-based. You have repeatedly misrepresented my actual positions throughout this thread. Your counter-examples have been weak and irrelevant.
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
Are people seriously in doubt that Birtherism is a racist ideology, or is this the kind of performative skepticism that people only ever seem to apply when a prominent right-wing politician (in any country) says something horribly bigoted?