• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Trump both stokes and obscures his supporters’ racial resentment

Because Obama's EO's are the stupidest ones. That's why.

Really? Did you ever bother to read any of Obama's EOs other than those the GOP complained about? I did...not all, but quite a few actually. Most were well written, well thought out and addressed specific problems within applicable law such as the EO I addressed above.

Get the chip off your shoulder.

What chip? Where? Is it a potatoe chip? A chocolate chip? A micro-chip?
 
Actually, he has seemed much less racially divisive than his predecessor. His comments in the latest ****storm were certainly much more even handed than Obama usually was and tjan liberals were screeching he should be.

And didn't he even do volunteer work down there during his visit, I know it was handing out meals or something but its been a good while since I've seen a president get hands on.
 
Key word is "seemed".

I would suggest you read the article fully then try reading Ian Haney-Lopez' "Dog Whistle Politics" [link to excerpt] then maybe you'll understand that often times there are hidden meanings behind words and phrases in politics. So, what "seems" to be an innocent or accurate statement of fact is actually a coded message of pandering, bigotry and sometimes hate.

Oh you mean going into what a person says, and pulling out the meaning that you want from what it is they are saying...

...yeah that just seems like another **** way to spin "He's a racist bigot" more so then even now.

What he is actually doing is far to the contrary from what this OP is stating. It sounds like more of the same politically charged, leftist speak that we have been hearing since before he was president. With just the same amount of shallow "search his words" evidence that they keep using.

Using this style of interpretation, and the knowledge that all politicians do this same stuff. I can possibly go back through everything that Obama has said during his seat as president, and possibly come out with a rather credible prospect that he was all for "Black power, and killing whites" does that sound fair to you in the least?
 
Trump is attempting to mimic Putin's nationalist/xenophobic approach in Rossiya, but he lacks Putin's personal charisma and political carte blanche.


Not to mention his sick, shirtless, bar-back horse riding skills.
 
What I find interesting is the fact that the right wingers mounted a march. Nobody invited the left wingers but they came looking to cause trouble and did so. If they hadn't come, the right winger march most likely would have been peaceful. It was really the left wingers that started or at leased caused the violence. I don't like either group but it isn't hard to see who the greater trouble makers are. This business of my bad guys are better than your bad guys is really stupid, isn't it? You have a group of racists squaring off against a group of anarchists and we find ways to justify one side or the other. It's really awful. Trump called them all out and so do I.

If it wasn't for one side actually being there legally, and having a permit that they actually registered for. (I mean why go through the trouble of getting a permit, if your just going to cause trouble?)

Had it not been for that, I would have been happy to just have them beat the **** out of each other. Maybe even sell tickets & put it on pay-per view.
 
I only read the fist sentence of your post and so only quoted that sentence.

I am sorry if I missed a return to sanity at a later point in your post.

Your thesis stated above is only sensical if viewed from your undeniably racist point of view.

Being this biased, your life must be one of misery and pain.

You have my sympathy.

Ohferchristsake.
 
The evidence is there. You're just choosing not to see it.

For example: Why is it that every Executive Order Pres. Trump has rescinded in whole or in part has only been those of President Obama's - not GW Bush's, not Bill Clinton's; not one from any other former President except Obama? It's easy to rationalize it and say it's because Obama was the last President, but that would be too easy since there are plenty of Executive Orders from past-Presidents that are still in effect. So, why just his?

Because in some instances Obama ****ed up, no sugar coating it.
 
Trump's racism is nothing new. Long before he ran for president he was quoted in David k. Johnson's book, "The making of Donald J. Trump". A book for which Trump threatened to sue Mr. Johnson for defamation but never did, because Mr. Johnson has the facts on his side. In this book Trump is quoted "I don't want black people counting my money, I want short guys who wear Yamakas counting my money" Trump was also sued for discriminatory rental practices. His son Donald Junior during the campaign posted on social media a picture of Donald senior and many associates with the meme Pepe the frog near Donald senior. According to the Anti Defamation league Pepe the frog is a symbol the White Nationalist have adopted. Also consider Donald's comments about the judge who presided over a laws suit Trumps was involved with. Trump called him a Mexican when in fact the Judge was born in America and was of Mexican decent. By that logic Trump himself or his children and especially his wife are not Americans. That statement was totally racist.

Trump's Pardoning of Sheriff Arpaio was racist on it's face but it was also strategic in nature. It was a signal to people like Manafort and others, Stay the course and I'll pardon you. Fortunately for the rule of law Mr. Mueller has a surprise for donny baby.

If you are basing one of your facts on something that the ADL has listed, then you have lost all credibility for that subject.

It is also not racist to point out someone's race in light of a political, or personal issue. Rude yes in most situations, but not racist. Should we all be considered racist because we recognize Obama as the first black president?

Like I thought, people are going to be on that Arpaio thing for a while. Even though it was not a racial reason that he was found in contempt of the order. Though it is becoming a normal thing these days with cops across America hoping they aren't going to get sued or fired for just doing their jobs.

You can wring your hands on this whole Mueller thing all you want, but with their current track record in trying to find something against Trump I am not holding my breath. All we have are people claiming he is doing something wrong, without giving the necessary evidence, and even this whole collusion thing has flown under the radar with everything this last two months has spawned. It was a sure bet that they would catch him on something there, so why are they just abandoning it so readily for something else?

It would be stupid to think he isn't guilty of something, but right now we are seeing a whole lot of nothing from the left in terms of proof.
 
Then you missed the entire point of the OP which means you failed to learn something yesterday...pity.



So am I. For as I stated above, you failed to learn something.


"Sensical"? Is that even a word? I think you meant to say "non-sense". In any case, it's not my racist point of view. It's a clear observation of the dog whistle "identity politics" tactics Pres. Trump is using in order to push through his agenda. Only those who would view what I've pointed out as me being racist are those whose who are in complete and utter denial to said tactics...either that or you're just blind to them because again you failed to learn something by not reading the entire post nor the linked article.



My life is just fine, thank you. I don't need your sympathy.

Well, with great pain resulting from the outright lies and the political attacks by VOX and you, I trudged through the propaganda you posted.

Again, it is only by assuming the extremely biased point of view that you hold that any of this is not insanity.

You hate Trump. I get it. As a result you change what he actually says to what you think someone you hate would have said.

You think your life is just fine. MLK quoted Buddha and you'd be wise to understand it. Your life would be just finer.

https://www.successconsciousness.co...ding-on-to-anger-is-like-grasping-a-hot-coal/

For your edification:

sensical
image: http://cf.ydcdn.net/1.0.1.80/images/dictionaries/Wiktionary-logo.png


Adjective
(comparative more sensical, superlative most sensical)

(neologism) That makes sense; showing internal logic; sensible.
Antonyms
nonsensical
Anagrams
sanicles
Origin
Back-formation from nonsensical.


Read more at Sensical dictionary definition | sensical defined
 
What I find interesting is the fact that the right wingers mounted a march. Nobody invited the left wingers but they came looking to cause trouble and did so. If they hadn't come, the right winger march most likely would have been peaceful. It was really the left wingers that started or at leased caused the violence. I don't like either group but it isn't hard to see who the greater trouble makers are. This business of my bad guys are better than your bad guys is really stupid, isn't it? You have a group of racists squaring off against a group of anarchists and we find ways to justify one side or the other. It's really awful. Trump called them all out and so do I.

We need to go back to original causes and not lose the context of the bigger picture. Racist and sexist laws are laws on the books that benefit one race or one sex over the other. Quota system laws, are laws that favor certain races and one sex over the other. These are racist laws, no matter how you subjectivity try to spin it it. That are racist and sexist simply because these are laws based on race and sex. This is not much different from the Democratic party of the 1900's making laws for black and white only; restaurants and schools. Those laws were based on race. The Democratic party is still playing the same race games.

Martin Luther King, in his famous speech said, I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Character is earned. Character is merit based, since it takes a lot of work and effort to develop and build character. Character is not something you are born with, like color or sex. Yet the Democrats, ignored Dr King's wisdom, and made laws that based on race and sex, with no regard to character or merit. This racist law allows good people, who never did anything, to be excluded by quotas based on sex or skin color. It also allows those who have the right color or sex to get benefits, even if there is no merit for this in terms of individual cause and affect. It all about racist and sexist stereo-types. Instead of colored and white only restaurants, the new Democrat party is about black or white only hiring.

What the Democrats call right wing racism and sexism is connected to a rational cry for fairness, where character and therefore merit come before color or sex, just like in the dream of Dr King. If this was the case, there would be no need to push back against racist and sexist corruption.

At the time of Dr King, the blacks had developed character. They knew right from wrong and would stand their ground for right. This character building allowed them to help change the country and world; civil rights. They had most people on their side, due to the character. Only the Democrats, without character, were against them. The foundation of their character was religion, family, community and country. With this foundation in place, that could do anything, so all they asked was a level playing field away from the Democratic party's racist laws of old; different segregation quotas.

The downfall of the blacks, after Dr King's death, was their hitching their wagon to the Democratic party and not remaining Republicans. This occurred due to the empathy of the love generation aspect of the Progressives. However, the same progressive wing of the Democratic party, was also against religion, it helped destroy the traditional family, and was never happy with the country. This destroy the foundation for character development in the next generations of blacks. This was the real problem.

Without the foundation needing for character development, to many blacks became less able to be self reliant and they became more dependent. They are once again enslaved with a dependency on the Democrats. This dependency is not due to cultural racism, but is a default when character is lacking. Republican blacks still have this foundation and are ridiculed by the left because they are free. The racist quota law giveaway, was a way to ruin even the blacks of character. There is no need for merit or character, when there are quotas based on skin color. This compounded dependency.

Trump and his supporters are for helping the blacks achieve the vision of Dr King, which is based on character. To do this you first need to rebuild the broken foundation. Trump pushes for country, he pushes for religious rights, and is pro-life and traditional family. The racist laws need to be removed since this was never the goal of Dr King. His goal was equality based on the merit. He believed and demonstrated what people of character can achieve.
 
Last edited:
Really? Did you ever bother to read any of Obama's EOs other than those the GOP complained about? I did...not all, but quite a few actually. Most were well written, well thought out and addressed specific problems within applicable law such as the EO I addressed above.



What chip? Where? Is it a potatoe chip? A chocolate chip? A micro-chip?

Obama tried to govern via executive orders. That was stupid.
 
Obama tried to govern via executive orders. That was stupid.

And Pres. Trump doing the same thing suddenly makes sense? His 17 pages (and counting) of Executive Orders, Memorandums and Proclamations aren't evidence of him attempting to govern via the Executive Branch?
 
And Pres. Trump doing the same thing suddenly makes sense? His 17 pages (and counting) of Executive Orders, Memorandums and Proclamations aren't evidence of him attempting to govern via the Executive Branch?

What EO's have been issued that are outside the president's constitutional power. Name one.
 
What EO's have been issued that are outside the president's constitutional power. Name one.

That's exactly my point. Both Obama and Trump have used EO's to expand on existing laws. They've hit the right balance on some and have gone on a few others (i.e., Trump's "Muslim Ban"; Obama's halting business tax collection under ObamaCare).

I just find it interesting that Obama was called "a King, tyrant and accused of Executive over-reach" at every turn when he issued EO's but Trump gets a pass.
 
That's exactly my point. Both Obama and Trump have used EO's to expand on existing laws. They've hit the right balance on some and have gone on a few others (i.e., Trump's "Muslim Ban"; Obama's halting business tax collection under ObamaCare).

I just find it interesting that Obama was called "a King, tyrant and accused of Executive over-reach" at every turn when he issued EO's but Trump gets a pass.

Name one instance where President Trump used an EO to expand a law. And the immigration ban didn't expand a lawm. It changed standards within an existing law.
 
Name one instance where President Trump used an EO to expand a law. And the immigration ban didn't expand a lawm. It changed standards within an existing law.

Ah...now you're moving the goal post (re: "expand a law" -vs- EO's issues outside of president's enumerated powers), but I'll play along.

In both examples given, I'd agree that Obama and Trump exhibited poor examples of "executive over-reach" using Executive Orders in an attempt to achieve their intended goals, and in both cases the judiciary reeled them in.

Checks and Balances. (I'd go "check-mate", but that would be mean. ;) )
 
Ah...now you're moving the goal post (re: "expand a law" -vs- EO's issues outside of president's enumerated powers), but I'll play along.

In both examples given, I'd agree that Obama and Trump exhibited poor examples of "executive over-reach" using Executive Orders in an attempt to achieve their intended goals, and in both cases the judiciary reeled them in.

Checks and Balances. (I'd go "check-mate", but that would be mean. ;) )

President Trump didn't over-reach. The president can suspend non-immigrant visas for any reason he sees fit.
 
President Trump didn't over-reach. The president can suspend non-immigrant visas for any reason he sees fit.

:lamo You just argued that the President must apply applicable law to an EO. Now you're saying he can do as he pleases. :lamo

You were right the first time. It would've been better had you quit while you were ahead.
 
:lamo You just argued that the President must apply applicable law to an EO. Now you're saying he can do as he pleases. :lamo

You were right the first time. It would've been better had you quit while you were ahead.

Than translates into: I don'r know what you just said, so I'll just wing it from here.
 
Than translates into: I don'r know what you just said, so I'll just wing it from here.

I know exactly what you said. The POTUS cannot just do what he pleases. Specifically, where the suspension of non-immigrant VISAs were concerned in Trump's "Muslim ban", he has to show cause (justification) for doing so under existing immigration law. He can't just suspend VISAs arbitrarily.

As I said, you were right the first time, but stuck your foot in your mouth the second time. Moreover, the (lower) courts ruled that Trump over-reached...TWICE (mostly on religious grounds as INA law prohibits such discriminatory practices even from the POTUS).

You got a partial victory today. Perhaps you should take that, run with it and call it a day.
 
I know exactly what you said. The POTUS cannot just do what he pleases. Specifically, where the suspension of non-immigrant VISAs were concerned in Trump's "Muslim ban", he has to show cause (justification) for doing so under existing immigration law. He can't just suspend VISAs arbitrarily.

As I said, you were right the first time, but stuck your foot in your mouth the second time. Moreover, the (lower) courts ruled that Trump over-reached...TWICE (mostly on religious grounds as INA law prohibits such discriminatory practices even from the POTUS).

You got a partial victory today. Perhaps you should take that, run with it and call it a day.

When it comes to non-immigrant visas, he can.
 
First, let me correct myself from post #45. I meant to say "immigrant VISAs" not "non-immigrant VISAs".

Second, even if the POTUS wanted to suspend non-immigrant (U.S. citizen) VISAs, he'd still have to have just cause to do so. He can't just up and decide on a whim to halt all travel from the U.S. to a specific country without justification. For example, he could issue a travel warning/restriction for Country X via the State Department due to hostilities in that country, but he can't do so arbitrarily not even for U.S. citizens.
 
Back
Top Bottom