Was Trump Racist When He Suggested That If These Women Were Not Happy Living In The Us They Could Always Leave?

[anotheoldgit]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/15/theresa-may-condemns-trumps-remarks-about-four-congresswomen

[jno]

If you're not happy in the US, go and live somewhere that makes you happier.[

not what Trump did when he was unhappy, though, is it? He ran for public office instead. And so did these women.

[andy-hughes]

AOG - // So my apology fell on stony ground then? //

No, it was accepted - it says so in my post, but you tend to skim first and snipe afterwards.

Once again I am not willing to assist you in de-railing another thread by assisting in the construction of another downward spiral of mutual arguing, so any future posts addressed to me not concerning the subject of debate will be ignored, for the good of the thread, and the patience of everyone else contributing.

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

/// Indeed he does, but I must wearisomely point out the age-old adage - "Free speech does not entitle you falsely to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre." ///

Then until he does shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre." then he should be free to speak his mind, is he not, is he not, even if if might not fit in with your own particular agenda?

[andy-hughes]

Oh dear ...

[KARL]

This sort of logic is seen elsewhere: Any criticism of something that clearly is imperfect is sinful, treasonable, etc., etc. - kill the criticism by defaming, humiliating, etc. the messenger, but never, never admit that what is being criticised is anything but perfect (or at least vastly superior to something else - go for the very lowest example whether it is relevant or not) divert attention, obscure the facts.

Then there are those who will not countenance any criticism of the one having an anti-criticism tantrum (opportunist or not) over his/her behaviour being an embarrassment and/or for its crassness. They resort to excuses, obfuscation, etc......divert, drown the voices of criticism, etc., we admire him/her.

When the dust settles and the embarrassment recedes there will be those who will wish words could be retracted but they are unlikely to have the courage to admit to it. And then some don't even have the intelligence or the character to understand that they were an embarrassment and would/will do it all over again.

[Spicerack]

Andy, you're imbued with the bigotry of low expectations. Because he's white, he can't answer rude black/brown people in kind.
Because he's intelligent, he can't answer insulting thick people (see your previous posts)in kind.

[andy-hughes]

AOG - // Then until he does shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre." then he should be free to speak his mind, is he not, is he not, even if if might not fit in with your own particular agenda? //

I would not dream of insulting you by suggesting that you don't understand that the 'Fire!' sentence is an example - but I would repeat my point - that free speech is a right which should not be slightly abused in order to offend people and score political points.

My political agenda - which is not mentioned or described - is irrelevant to that point.

[andy-hughes]

Spicerack - // Andy, you're imbued with the bigotry of low expectations. //

An interesting notion - false, but interesting.

// Because he's white, he can't answer rude black/brown people in kind.
Because he's intelligent, he can't answer insulting thick people (see your previous posts)in kind. //

The President's ethnicity (beyond doubt) and his intelligence (seriously debatable) are not the point at issue here.

I believe that the President has been entirely consistent in his attitude - he is gleefully and unashamedly racist and offensive in both what he said, and how he said it, which fits entirely with his persona and attitudes both as a citizen, and as a President.

What I remain bafffled by is the willingness of some people to try and defend his postion by trying to explain that he was not being racist and offensive.

To do so, offers the President a disservice.

He fully intended to be rude and objectionable, so to defend him is to detract from his intended purpose, I doubt he would thank anyone for trying to put a reasonable civilised spin on what was fully intended to be anything but.

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes
12.12 post:
/// so any future posts addressed to me not concerning the subject of debate will be ignored, for the good of the thread, and the patience of everyone else contributing. ///

Hardly a man of your word are you?

You just can't keep away can you?

[andy-hughes]

AOG - // andy-hughes
12.12 post:
/// so any future posts addressed to me not concerning the subject of debate will be ignored, for the good of the thread, and the patience of everyone else contributing. ///

I am happy to respond to any post you make about the OP - and that is what I did.

// Hardly a man of your word are you? //

I am, absolutely.

// You just can't keep away can you? //

That is a correct observation.

[anotheoldgit]

/// he is gleefully and unashamedly racist and offensive in both what he said, and how he said it, ///

I now must remove from you the title of AB's expert on racism, since it now seems that it is you that doesn't understand what real racism is.
Since both of UK's politicians who are competing for the title as the UK's Prime Minister refuse to accuse president Trump of racism, not only that but also the majority of ABers who have contributed to this thread also claim that he is not being racist.

So it looks as if you will have to join your minority in being re-educated in the meaning of racism.

[youngmafbog]

Go Donald!

[andy-hughes]

AOG - // // he is gleefully and unashamedly racist and offensive in both what he said, and how he said it, ///

I now must remove from you the title of AB's expert on racism, since it now seems that it is you that doesn't understand what real racism is. //

Drat - I enjoyed it while it lasted!!!!

// Since both of UK's politicians who are competing for the title as the UK's Prime Minister refuse to accuse president Trump of racism, not only that but also the majority of ABers who have contributed to this thread also claim that he is not being racist. //

Since both of UK's politicians who are competing for the title as the UK's Prime Minister refuse to accuse president Trump of racism, not only that but also the majority of ABers who have contributed to this thread also claim that he is not being racist.

The fact that a politician does not condemn another politician for their view does not mean that said view is acceptable, or right, it just means that the politicians have their eye on the bigger picture, which can often lead to trouble. Remember Neville Chamberlain making positive noises about that nice Herr Hitler?

Similarly, by no means all the regulars who may have input into this debate have yet posted, so i am not willing to accept your 'majority' as actually being a majority.

Although even if it was, it simply means that a number of people think one way - it does not make their view correct based on the number of people who agree with them.

[ichkeria]

I don’t like to bandy terms like “racist” around and I don’t blame Hunt and Johnson for holding back, but yes: it was blatantly racist.
Leaving the labels aside it was a despicable thing to say anyway.

[Zacs-Master]

I can't see any people on here who might be offended by Trump's comments. Only they can say whether it was racist. I do wish people would realise this.

This leaves us with looking at the reaction from those who might be and it would, based on the evidence I've seen and heard on media, that they most defiantly do consider it racist.

[ichkeria]

Four years ago Boris Johnson branded Trump as displaying “stupefying ignorance” and “unfit to hold the office of president of the United States. What people say now is governed merely by diplomacy : we know what everyone really thinks.

[Zacs-Master]

Ich, you've just made the same point I made in the thread about the Ambassador.

[andy-hughes]

Ich - // Four years ago Boris Johnson branded Trump as displaying “stupefying ignorance” and “unfit to hold the office of president of the United States. What people say now is governed merely by diplomacy : we know what everyone really thinks. //

It underlines my point - as Prime Minister, Boris is going to have to deal with President Trump face to face - he has his eye on the bigger picture.

[ichkeria]

You don’t have to be a victim of racism to brand something as racist. Where I am hesitant to use the term, it’s only because we get worked up about labelling.
Same in a way with the anti semitism row. Regardless of what else you call it, the Labour party’s treatment of some of its members is likewise despicable.

[ichkeria]

Yes I know Johnson can’t use that sort of language now A Hughes. But like I say, we know what he thinks