Birtherism 2.0: The Totally-Not-Racist Party Strikes Again

[Revoltingest]

Your projection throughout this interaction has been clear and painful to watch. You repeatedly misrepresented what I actually said. I addressed each of your counterpoints, including Cruz more than once.

You addressed Cruz by denying that it was birtherism using a
criterion (short duration) which would've excluded Harris too.
Your argument is a mirages coupled with denial of reality.

This hatred of Trump & reliance on left leaning anti-Trump echo
chamber sources destroys objectivity. I'm fine with criticizing him
for things worthy of criticism, eg, his flirting with war against Iran.
But the left pays that less little attention than to calling him "racist".
This is nuts. It's dangerous because it eclipses major policy risks.

I agree, this dialogue should end.

But will it?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Deflection is uninteresting.
I don't reward it with conversation.

Nice deflection! Let me know when you’re ready to have a conversation. Until then I guess you’ll just have to punish me with your silence (woe is me).

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Ambiguous double neg.

Will you state for the record, is Donald Trump racist?

Fantome, it’s perfectly clear. Revolt never said Trump isn’t racist. And don’t ask him whether he thinks Trump is racist because, come on, how is that relevant here.

Why is everyone so quick to judge a man, simply because he is so quick to judge a colored woman? That’s the real prejudice here.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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?

Revolt I realize you’re not speaking to me because I asked a totally unfair question about whether Trump has ever said anything racist, in a thread about whether Trump said something racist (sorry for completely changing the topic like that - my mind wanders with age).

But for the benefit of fantome and anyone else reading: the reason it’s relevant, as I said before, is Occam’s Razor. I don’t live inside Trump’s head (which I imagine to be a lot like Toonville from the movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit, by the way) and therefore I don’t know which of his many prejudices just happened to be operative when he insinuated our first black woman candidate is not truly American.

But, I do think racism is necessary to explain his past behavior. And I’m asking: do you agree? Because if so, and if racism is sufficient to explain his latest behavior ... then by Occam’s Razor ... why wouldn’t we assume the simplest explanation?

 

[Revoltingest]

I think that I tend to agree with you, although I have some misgivings. It is certainly stupid, since the Constitution (Article 2 and Amendment 14) makes it 100% clear that she meets the requirements. But I think the OP said that "this wouldn't be an issue if she were white." That's a possibility....

How do you explain Trump challenging Cruz's eligibility then?
He's white, & his having been born in Canuckistan was the issue.
It's odd that people claim birtherism is based upon race. It was
a problem for white politicians long before Obama.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why is everyone so quick to judge a man, simply because he is so quick to judge a colored woman? That’s the real prejudice here.

Trump harshly & shallowly judges all political foes,
be they white, "colored", male, female, or other.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nice deflection time out! Let me know when you’re ready to have a conversation. Until then I guess you’ll just have to punish me with your silence (woe is me).

Fixed.
May your suffering be mild.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How do you explain Trump challenging Cruz's eligibility then?
He's white, & his having been born in Canuckistan was the issue.
It's odd that people claim birtherism is based upon race. It was
a problem for white politicians long before Obama.

I was (as a non-American) unaware of that particular accusation. Was also unaware of the McCain/Panama issue. I have now added these to my repertoire.

So, okay, we can say that this particular episode is no real evidence of racism.

Somehow, however, I don't find myself any more endeared to Trump. I'm also not certain that he has much of an election game-plan, if this is the kind of crap he's going to fling. (Please try not to notice the very subtle chimpanzee hint...)

 

[Revoltingest]

I was (as a non-American) unaware of that particular accusation. Was also unaware of the McCain/Panama issue. I have now added these to my repertoire.

So, okay, we can say that this particular episode is no real evidence of racism.

Somehow, however, I don't find myself any more endeared to Trump. I'm also not certain that he has much of an election game-plan, if this is the kind of crap he's going to fling. (Please try not to notice the very subtle chimpanzee hint...)

Debunking the claim of racism shouldn't be seen as any
feather in Trump's cap. (Note also that I don't disprove
racism...only their argument that it must be racism.)
His mean nature, thoughtlessness, & ignorance of the
law are arguably far worse than racism.

 

[Left Coast]

@Revoltingest, your continued strawmanning aside, I'm done having a conversation in this thread with you. My case was laid out clearly and rationally, and I repeatedly answered your objections. You don't find my argument convincing. We'll see if you can leave it there and not reply further, or if you'll insist on one last parting shot. I have a prediction, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

Revolt I realize you’re not speaking to me because I asked a totally unfair question about whether Trump has ever said anything racist, in a thread about whether Trump said something racist (sorry for completely changing the topic like that - my mind wanders with age).

But for the benefit of fantome and anyone else reading: the reason it’s relevant, as I said before, is Occam’s Razor. I don’t live inside Trump’s head (which I imagine to be a lot like Toonville from the movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit, by the way) and therefore I don’t know which of his many prejudices just happened to be operative when he insinuated our first black woman candidate is not truly American.

But, I do think racism is necessary to explain his past behavior. And I’m asking: do you agree? Because if so, and if racism is sufficient to explain his latest behavior ... then by Occam’s Razor ... why wouldn’t we assume the simplest explanation?

You're just rehashing the same arguments that ignore Cruz's existence.

 

[Revoltingest]

@Revoltingest, your continued strawmanning aside....

This points out the problem with your arguing based upon assigning
labels. Your calling Trump a racist doesn't make it so. Neither does
labeling an argument as an informal logical fallacy.
Cruz is white.
Trump birtherized both Cruz & Harris.
Therefore his birtherizing is not proven to
be based upon the opponent being black.
It's astounding that you cannot see this.

Btw, I see your trick.
Play the provocateur with the "strawmanning" shot,
& then claim the high road about parting shots.
I'm far too compulsive to let that slide.

 

[Left Coast]

This points out the problem with your arguing based upon assigning
labels. Your calling Trump a racist doesn't make it so. Neither does
labeling an argument as an informal logical fallacy.
Cruz is white.
Trump birtherized both Cruz & Harris.
Therefore his birtherizing is not proven to
be based upon the opponent being black.
It's astounding that you cannot see this.

Darn it Rev! You proved me right again! You were so close.

Have a nice evening.

 

[Revoltingest]

Darn it Rev! You proved me right again! You were so close.

Have a nice evening.

You seem so desperate to win at something.
If it can't be a bogus argument, then a taunt
designed to elicit the predicted response it is.
Congrats on your win.
Your family must be so proud.

 

[Shaul]

If she was born in the US then she is a citizen.

No one has suggested she isn’t a citizen. The question is whether she is a natural born citizen.

 

[Shaul]

This question did not originate from President Trump. Many others have been asking this question for some time. There is nothing racist or sexist to ask this question. The Democrats are putting up flak to avoid the issue. They chose her as their candidate. They need to present a solid case showing she is a natural born citizen.

 

[Tambourine]

Your speculation is off the mark.
Cruz's problem was that having been born in Canuckistan.
The law is both murky & arcane, which is why birtherism
has occurred throughout Ameristan's history.
Ted Cruz: Eligible for President?
Trump, Obama, Cruz, McCain, Harris....they're just
new players in an old game. In an earlier post, I
listed historical figures who had eligibility challenged.

How was it "murky or arcane" whether Obama was eligible?
He was a US citizen born in an US state to US American parents.

 

[Tambourine]

This question did not originate from President Trump. Many others have been asking this question for some time. There is nothing racist or sexist to ask this question. The Democrats are putting up flak to avoid the issue. They chose her as their candidate. They need to present a solid case showing she is a natural born citizen.

Have you seen Donald Trump's birth certificate with your own eyes?
If not, then why do you assume that he is a natural born citizen?

In fact, how can you know that any particular American is a natural born citizen?
Why do you think don't people assume that everyone entering American politics is a foreigner with a fake passport until proven otherwise?

 

[Revoltingest]

How was it "murky or arcane" whether Obama was eligible?
He was a US citizen born in an US state to US American parents.

What's murky & arcane is the law.
Obama's eligibility is clear as day.

 

[Tambourine]

What's murky & arcane is the law.
Obama's eligibility is clear as day.

And yet it was challenged by - or so you have claimed - a not-racist person for not-racist reason.
Why do you think that was the case for Obama, and not for, say, one of the Clintons?

What set Obama, a Democrat born in the US to American parents, apart from Hillary Clinton, a Democrat born in the US to American parents?

Why are people questioning Kamala Harris's eligibility, but not Joe Biden's?