Racism comes out of the closet

  
Via:  bob-nelson  •  one month ago  •  57 comments

Racism comes out of the closet
This should be a moment of truth for anyone who asserts Trump's support is based on 'economic anxiety'

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


In 1981 Lee Atwater, the famed Republican political operative, explained to an interviewer how his party had learned to exploit racial antagonism using dog whistles. “You start out in 1954 by saying ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger.’” But by the late 1960s, “that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, ‘forced busing,’ ‘states’ rights,’ and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.”

Well, the dog whistle days are over. Republicans are pretty much back to saying “Nigger, nigger, nigger.”

As everyone knows, on Sunday Donald Trump attacked four progressive members of Congress, saying that they should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.” As it happens, three of the four were born in the US, and the fourth is a duly naturalized citizen. All are, however, women of colour.

Sorry, there’s no way to both sides this, or claim that Trump didn’t say what he said. This is racism, plain and simple — nothing abstract about it. And Trump obviously isn’t worried that it will backfire.

This should be a moment of truth for anyone who describes Trump as a “populist” or asserts that his support is based on “economic anxiety.” He’s not a populist, he’s a white supremacist. His support rests not on economic anxiety, but on racism.

And since we’re having this moment of clarity, there are several other points we should address.

First, this isn’t just about Trump; it’s about his whole party.

I don’t just mean the almost complete absence of condemnation of Trump’s racism on the part of prominent Republicans, although this cowardice was utterly predictable. I mean that Trump isn’t alone in deciding that this is a good time to bring raw racism out of the closet.

Last week Bill Lee, the Republican governor of Tennessee, signed a proclamation ordering a day to honour the Confederate Gen Nathan Bedford Forrest, whom he described as a “recognised military figure.” Indeed, Forrest was a talented military commander. He was also a traitor, a war criminal who massacred African-American prisoners, and a terrorist who helped found the Ku Klux Klan.

Put it this way: The Nazis had some very good generals, too. But the world would be horrified if Germany announced plans to start celebrating Erich von Manstein Day. There are, no doubt, some Germans who would like to honor Nazi heroes. But they aren’t in positions of power; their American counterparts are.

Second, although most of the commentary focuses on Trump’s demand that native-born Americans “go back” to their home countries, his description of their imaginary homelands as “crime infested” deserves some attention, too. For his fixation on crime is another manifestation of his racism.

I’m not sure how many people remember Trump’s inaugural address, which was all about “American carnage” — an alleged epidemic of violent crime sweeping our nation’s cities. He didn’t explicitly say, but clearly implied, that this supposed crime wave was being perpetrated by people with dark skins. And, of course, both Trump and the Trumpist media go on all the time about immigrant criminality.

In reality, violent crime in America’s big cities is near historical lows, and all the available evidence suggests that immigrants are, if anything, less likely than the native-born to commit crimes. But the association between nonwhites and crime is a deeply held tenet among white racists, and no amount of evidence will shake their belief.

Oh, and the real “American carnage” is the surge in “deaths of despair” from drugs, suicide and alcohol among less-educated whites. But this doesn’t fit the racist narrative.

Finally, the GOP’s new comfort level with open racism should serve as a wake-up call to Democrats, both centrists and progressives, who sometimes seem to forget who and what they’re confronting.

On one side, Joe Biden’s celebration of the good relations he used to have with segregationist senators sounds even more tone-deaf than it did a month ago. Biden clearly isn’t a racist, but he needs to get a clue about how important it is to confront the racism sweeping the GOP.

On the other side, Democrats need to be very careful about doing anything that even hints at playing the race card against their own party. I understand progressive frustration over Nancy Pelosi’s caution and exasperation at moderate Democrats who may be causing that caution; many of us share their frustration. But there’s no equivalence between even the most foot-dragging Democrats and the GOP’s raw racial incitement, and anyone who suggests otherwise is acting destructively.

It’s tempting to say that Republican claims to support racial equality were always hypocritical; it’s even tempting to welcome the move from dog whistles to open racism. But if hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue, what we’re seeing now is a party that no longer feels the need to pay that tribute. And that’s deeply frightening.

Initial image: U.S. President Donald Trump takes questions from reporters during his ‘Made In America’ product showcase at the White House July 15, 2019 in Washington, DC. Trump talked with American business owners during the 3rd annual showcase, one day after Tweeting that four Democratic congresswomen of color should go back to their own countries. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Bob Nelson
1  seeder  Bob Nelson    one month ago

original

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2  Nerm_L    one month ago

Nathan Beford Forrest was a Democrat.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Nerm_L @2    one month ago

yep, and the law requiring the Governor to sign the proclamation was passed by...…...A Democratic-majority State legislature.

But shhhhhhh…..wouldn't want the real truth to get anyone's little panties all twisted!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    one month ago

The proclamation was passed by Republican majorities in both houses.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.1    one month ago

Best look up which party was the majority in the state legislature when the LAW was passed.

it was Democrats, BTFW.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Nerm_L @2    one month ago

Nathan Bedford Forrest was a White Supremacist terrorist.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2    one month ago
Nathan Bedford Forrest was a White Supremacist terrorist.

That doesn't change the FACT that he was a Democrat.  Period, end of story.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.2  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.1    one month ago

If you think his being an 1850s Democrat is significant in 2019, that surely says more about you than about him.

I think his being a White Supremacist terrorist is far more significant.

I think that honoring a White Supremacist terrorist is very significant.

Do you honor Nathan Bedford Forrest?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.2.3  Nerm_L  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2    one month ago
Nathan Bedford Forrest was a White Supremacist terrorist.

Nathan Bedford Forrest was a Democrat.  How you define Democrats is your choice.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2.3    one month ago
Nathan Bedford Forrest was a Democrat.  How you define Democrats is your choice.

Yes, and so was Cleisthenes back in 507 bc. Both have about as much to do with the modern Democrat party as they have to do with each other. The groups they belonged to at their time in history used the word "Democrat" or "Demokrat" as Cleisthenes did when he first introduced "rule by the people".

I'm more concerned with which party today is defending the monuments to vile racists like Nathan Bedford Forest and who signed into law the Nathan Bedford Forest holiday. That would be a far greater indication as to which party embraces the racist confederate bigotry of our nations past.

Oh, and since he was a Southern Democrat, shouldn't the majority party in Tennessee (the Republicans) be against making him a State holiday?

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.2.5  r.t..b...  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.4    one month ago
which party today is defending the monuments to vile racists like Nathan Bedford Forest and who signed into law the Nathan Bedford Forest holiday.

The GOP of today is constantly looking backward as they flip their Whigs in defending the indefensible. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.2.6  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.4    one month ago
I'm more concerned with which party today is defending the monuments to vile racists like Nathan Bedford Forest and who signed into law the Nathan Bedford Forest holiday. That would be a far greater indication as to which party embraces the racist confederate bigotry of our nations past.

Nathan Bedford Forrest was a Democrat.  Hiding Nathan Bedford Forrest in the closet won't change the history of the Democratic Party.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.7  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2.6    one month ago
Hiding Nathan Bedford Forrest in the closet won't change the history

No Democrat is asking to "hide" this confederate bigot, they simply see no reason to have a bust of him in front of their capital and they think a Nathan Bedford Forrest holiday is shameful and disgusting. Only those who secretly embrace those same confederate ideas of bigotry and treason would suggest, support, propose and honor such an obviously racist worthless human being and making a holiday to celebrate him. No matter how many times you repeat the sad ignorant trope about him being a Democrat in a pointless attempt to smear the current Democrat party, no one with more than half a brain will be fooled by who the real racist party is today.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.7    one month ago
No Democrat is asking to "hide" this confederate bigot, they simply see no reason to have a bust of him in front of their capital and they think a Nathan Bedford Forrest holiday is shameful and disgusting. Only those who secretly embrace those same confederate ideas of bigotry and treason would suggest, support, propose and honor such an obviously racist worthless human being and making a holiday to celebrate him. No matter how many times you repeat the sad ignorant trope about him being a Democrat in a pointless attempt to smear the current Democrat party, no one with more than half a brain will be fooled by who the real racist party is today.

And yet, history shows us that a Democrat suggested the bust, Democrats held the majority that passed the bust, and Democrats were in the majority when the bust was installed.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.2.9  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.7    one month ago
No Democrat is asking to "hide" this confederate bigot, they simply see no reason to have a bust of him in front of their capital and they think a Nathan Bedford Forrest holiday is shameful and disgusting. Only those who secretly embrace those same confederate ideas of bigotry and treason would suggest, support, propose and honor such an obviously racist worthless human being and making a holiday to celebrate him. No matter how many times you repeat the sad ignorant trope about him being a Democrat in a pointless attempt to smear the current Democrat party, no one with more than half a brain will be fooled by who the real racist party is today.

Nathan Beford Forrest was a Democrat.  The current Democratic Party has a 200 year history and Nathan Bedford Forrest is part of that long history. 

Democrats do not want people to understand that history is not on the side of the Democratic Party.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.10  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.8    one month ago
a Democrat suggested the bust, Democrats held the majority that passed the bust, and Democrats were in the majority when the bust was installed.

Forty six years ago, Southern Democrats in Tennessee did do just what you say. What of today? Why do you keep deflecting from which party is proposing and signing into law the Nathan Bedford Forrest Day? All you're doing is confirming the fact that as the Democrat party died out in the South over the last forty years, it was replaced by those same bigots who didn't move out of the state, they just changed parties and pretended their racist confederate loving past was all those Democrats who had mysteriously disappeared around their parts, even though none moved away... And now the Republican party is saying "Hey, it was those racist Democrats who put this racist bust up in front of the capital, but we have to do the right thing and leave it there in a place of honor and respect, so no one forgets. And on top of that, let's have a day to celebrate that racist confederate Democrat, so no one forgets...". It would be funny if that wasn't the actual line of defense I'm hearing.

The guy who suggested the bust, Tennessee Senator Douglas Henry, died on March 5, 2017, at his home in Nashville, Tennessee. Republican Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam called him "a powerhouse intellect, courteous, kind, genuine and a statesman" and added "I will miss knowing that his wisdom and perspective are only a phone call away".

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.11  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.10    one month ago
Forty six years ago, Southern Democrats in Tennessee did do just what you say. What of today? Why do you keep deflecting from which party is proposing and signing into law the Nathan Bedford Forrest Day?

AGAIN, refer to a real history book.

Which party was the majority party when the law was passed stating that the Governor MUST sign the proclamation?

Hmmmmm….Democratic.

And for all your protestations, Democrats loved the Southern Democrats when it meant the Democrats could retain power.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2.9    one month ago
Nathan Beford Forrest was a Democrat. The current Democratic Party has a 200 year history and Nathan Bedford Forrest is part of that long history.
Democrats do not want people to understand that history is not on the side of the Democratic Party.

Exactly right.

The Democrats are simply trying to distance themselves from their roots.

Funny how some believe that if you support Trump, then you are racist, but the Democrats who loved the Southern Democrats WEREN'T racist.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.12    one month ago
Funny how some believe that if you support Trump, then you are racist, but the Democrats who loved the Southern Democrats WEREN'T racist.

Trying to blame TODAYS Democrats for what happened 100 or 150 years ago is probably the stupidest thing Ive ever seen. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.14  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.11    one month ago
Which party was the majority party when the law was passed stating that the Governor MUST sign the proclamation?

"Since 1931, every governor in Tennessee has been required by law to sign a proclamation honoring the controversial Confederate general."

"As of 2019, Nathan Bedford Forrest Day is still observed in Tennessee, though some Democrats in the state have attempted to change the law which requires Tennessee's governor to sign a proclamation honoring the holiday"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest

I know you don't want to listen and keep deflecting from what the Republican party has become, but the facts are there staring everyone in the face and they won't ever go away, so deflect and distract all you want, it won't change a thing.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.15  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.14    one month ago

Why do Democrats NEED Republicans to clean up their fucking messes?

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.2.16  r.t..b...  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.13    one month ago
Trying to blame TODAYS Democrats for what happened 100 or 150 years ago is probably the stupidest thing Ive ever seen. 

Only to be surpassed by the ad hominem attacks every time the issue is broached. Times and circumstances change...otherwise we are stuck with slavery, women not having the vote, and I would be a criminal for marrying outside my race. To argue who is responsible is wasted energy and missing the point entirely...we were collectively aware of an injustice and we were together enough to rectify the same. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.17  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.13    one month ago
Trying to blame TODAYS Democrats for what happened 100 or 150 years ago is probably the stupidest thing Ive ever seen.

Is that what you read?

Maybe you should go back and read it AGAIN.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.2.18  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.13    one month ago
Trying to blame TODAYS Democrats for what happened 100 or 150 years ago is probably the stupidest thing Ive ever seen. 

Nathan Bedford Forrest was a Democrat.  George Washington owned slaves, as did Thomas Jefferson.  The Democratic Party was established to preserve slavery and expand slavery into parts of country where the founders prohibited slavery.  If the founders are tainted by the history of slavery, Democrats are far more than tainted.  History is not on the side of the Democratic Party.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.2.19  r.t..b...  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2.18    one month ago
History is not on the side of the Democratic Party.

Interesting point. One wonders what future historians will have to say about today's Republican Party. Perhaps befuddlement in how they could have morphed so dramatically from the ideals of Lincoln, TR, Eisenhower, and even Reagan into the pimps they have become in excusing the current administration. Wrong side of history indeed.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.20  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.15    one month ago
Why do Democrats NEED Republicans to clean up their fucking messes?

Because the Republican party is now the majority party in Tennessee with double digit leads over Democrats (48% Republican to 36% Democrat) and has been for over two decades. The last time they voted for a Democrat President was 1996.

But that's not the real issue is it, Republicans aren't upset at supposedly having to "clean up Democrats mess" because those same Republicans who now who refuse to remove the bust and refuse to change the holiday law were, or their ancestors were, those same Democrats who put the bust there and created the law.

The racist hate and those who celebrate confederate treason and long for the "South to Rise Again" didn't move out of Tennessee or any of the old confederate States, they're still there and most of them now support Donald Trump and the Republican party regardless of how much smokescreen religious conservatives try and put up to hide it.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.21  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  r.t..b... @2.2.19    one month ago

History is written by the victors. In Mandarin.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.22  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.20    one month ago

Ah yes. I wondered when the old, erroneous argument about all the racist southern Democrats becoming Republicans would surface.

Tennessee saw a Democratic House from 1992-2010. 

Tennessee saw a  GOP Senate just 3 times in the same time period, and 2 split Senates. 

Tennessee saw a Democratic Governor for 11 of those years compared to 8 for the GOP.

And amazingly, NARY a word from ANYONE about this terrible, terrible thing!

Take the faux-poutrage with you.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.23  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.22    one month ago

Are you a fan of Nathan Bedford Forrest?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.24  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.23    one month ago
Are you a fan of Nathan Bedford Forrest?

I'm not a fan of any Democrat, dead or alive.

WTF does that have to do with anything?

Why does MY opinion about some old dead Democrat matter in this conversation?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.25  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.24    one month ago

Why won't you answer a straightforward question?

Are you a fan of Nathan Bedford Forrest?

Yes?

No?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.26  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.25    one month ago
Why won't you answer a straightforward question?
Are you a fan of Nathan Bedford Forrest?
Yes?
No?

Oh, FFS, Bob.

Exactly WTF do you think this means?

"I'm not a fan of any Democrat, dead or alive."

Do I need to lead you to an answer?

Was Forrest a Democrat? Answer: YES

Am I fan of ANY Democrat, dead or alive?

Answer: I am not a fan of ANY Democrat, dead or alive.

Ergo, Bob, I am NOT a fan of Forrest.

Please at least try to figure out what my comments mean before asking me inane questions.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.27  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.26    one month ago

Are you truly saying that belonging to 1850s Democrats is more significant to you than founding the KKK?

Seriously?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.28  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.27    one month ago
Are you truly saying that belonging to 1850s Democrats is more significant to you than founding the KKK?
Seriously?

Now, Bob, If you are going to ask a different question and then make it seem as if that was my answer to another question, well, that is just lazy.

What part of all of this keeps eluding you?

You asked if I was a fan.

I said no.

Do you have any point which you wish to attempt to make here?

Any freaking point at all?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.29  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.28    one month ago
Do you have any point which you wish to attempt to make here?

Of course. I wanted to give you lots of opportunities to condemn White Supremacist terrorism.

You avoided doing so, as we all knew you would. That was my point.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.30  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.29    one month ago
Of course. I wanted to give you lots of opportunities to condemn White Supremacist terrorism.

Weak sauce, Bob, weak sauce.

Why do I need to jump up on my little soapbox and denounce things the very vast majority of Americans denounce already without making such a big deal out of it?

You avoided doing so, as we all knew you would. That was my point.

We? Got a mouse in your pocket? You seem to forget that I am a member of the political party that ended slavery.

Like I said before, I see no point in getting up on a soapbox like some do. It is like they are trying to convince themselves more than anything. "Look at me, look at me!! I am against slavery like the Republicans were all along! Ain't I woke?"

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.31  MUVA  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.30    one month ago

Some assign  beliefs, motives and thoughts to you hey that is a strawman argument and has no validity.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.32  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.30    one month ago

See how this works?

You just had another opportunity to condemn White Supremacist terrorism. You avoided it. Your silence is eloquent.

I will continue to give you opportunities to condemn White Supremacist terrorism. Will you continue to duck and dodge?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.33  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  MUVA @2.2.31    one month ago

No, MUVA, it is not a strawman because I have invited Tex to prove me wrong. Over and over.

So... each time... he shows the world who he really is.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3  JohnRussell    one month ago

There is a straight line that goes through all this. When Barack Obama became president it dawned on millions of white Americans that the U.S. was demographically changing. Opposition to Obama such as the infamous "birther" movement was an overt manifestation of the so called "fear of a black (and brown) planet" which is a theme representing the truth that white birthrates declined faster than birthrates of people of color, and most immigrants to the US are non white, and so the US would one day no longer be considered a "white" nation. This is of course a tragic disaster for people whose race matters to them. They dont want to be in a country that is no longer "white". 

This is the back story to everything that happens today related to racial issues. 

Oh, one more thing  - Trump became the king birther. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3    one month ago

Race seems to matter a whole lot to you, since you are the one espousing nonsense about it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    one month ago

It isnt nonsense at all, it is the truth.  I suppose you think people became birthers simply because they thought Obama was born in Kenya. 

They used to call him  "the usurper" , do you remember that? What is a usurper? Someone who takes a position they are not entitled to.   To the birthers, Obama was not white and thus he was not entitled to be president. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    one month ago

Wah, wah, wah,

Just another vomit pile on the never-ending list of your usual "I Hate Trump***" screeds.

***= STILL YOUR PRESIDENT

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1.3  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    one month ago

Please indicate which of Krugman's arguments if false and why. If you can.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.4  XDm9mm  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.3    one month ago
Please indicate which of Krugman's arguments if false and why. If you can.

Well, there's this bit of bullshit directly from the article:

First, this isn’t just about Trump; it’s about his whole party.

It's so ludicrous, it's not even worth refuting.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1.5  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.4    one month ago
Please indicate which of Krugman's arguments if false and why. If you can.
 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.6  XDm9mm  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.5    one month ago
Please indicate which of Krugman's arguments if false and why. If you can.

I already did once, but I'll do so again just for you.  Here's the seventh paragraph of the article YOU posted and are now asking about as false:

First, this isn’t just about Trump; it’s about his whole party.

Try READING the article YOU posted before asking others for help.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1.7  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.6    one month ago

How is Krugman's argument false?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.8  XDm9mm  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.7    one month ago
How is Krugman's argument false?

Try reading the article YOU posted.  Here's the last reply to inane questions.  DIRECTLY from the article:

Republicans are pretty much back to saying “Nigger, nigger, nigger.”

The only ones doing so are extremists and many of the left to purportedly make a point....  like Krugman.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.2  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @3    one month ago

"Trump became the king birther."

In your eyes John - only in your eyes.  Of course, you DON'T remember when Trump stated that Obama, the half-white/half-black President, was, indeed, born in the U.S.  'Course not - you have to maintain your umbrage against Trump or anyone who "hinted" that Obama, being HALF-WHITE/HALF-BLACK, wasn't born in the U.S.

Get out of the rut John - 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @3.2    one month ago
you DON'T remember when Trump stated that Obama, the half-white/half-black President, was, indeed, born in the U.S. 

He "stated" that 5 years later when he though the birtherism might hurt his election campaign. Trump promoted a racist conspiracy theory in 2011 because he thought it would help him create a political base. It is well known and it is all there is to it. 

I'm pretty sure I know more on this topic than you do because I'm not sure you know anything about it. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.2.2  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.1    one month ago

1st, John...

Obama is not the topic. Birtherism is only a teeny-tiny sliver of the topic: Trump and the entire Republican Party are now unabashedly racist.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.2.3  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.1    one month ago

How little you know of me John.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.4  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @3.2.3    one month ago
How little you know of me John.

I'm sure that's true, but you've never shown that you understand birtherism, or Trump's role in it at all. 

You have continuously said that Hillary Clinton or her campaign started birtherism. EVEN IF THAT WERE TRUE, and it's not, it still would not explain or excuse what Trump did 3 or 4 years later. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.5  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.4    one month ago
I'm sure that's true, but you've never shown that you understand birtherism, or Trump's role in it at all.

Actually, it was apparently initiated by a DEMOCRAT.  Live with that FACT JR. 

Conspiracy theories about Obama's religion appeared at least as early as his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign in a press release by Illinois political candidate Andy Martin,[28]and, according to a Los Angeles Times editorial, as Internet rumors.[29] 

From the start of March 2008, rumors that Obama was born in Kenya before being flown to Hawaii were spread on conservative websites, with the suggestion that this would disqualify Obama from the presidency.[30] In April of that year, some supporters of Hillary Clinton circulated anonymous chain emails repeating the same rumor;[31] among them was an Iowa campaign volunteer, who was fired when the story emerged.[32][33] These and numerous other chain e-mails during the subsequent presidential election circulated false rumors about Obama's origin, religion, and birth certificate.[34][35]

Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

what's hysterical about what's posted is that the name TRUMP is nowhere to be found but Democrat names are.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.5    one month ago
Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories
what's hysterical about what's posted is that the name TRUMP is nowhere to be found but Democrat names are.

-

Really?  Not sure how this large section of the wikipedia article slipped past your eagle eye, but it did. 

Donald Trump

Trump was the most prominent promoter of birther conspiracy theories.[131][132] This elevated Trump's political profile in the years leading up to his successful 2016 presidential campaign.[131][132][133] According to political scientists John Sides, Michael Tesler, and Lynn Vavreck, Trump "became a virtual spokesperson for the “birther” movement. The strategy worked: when Trump flirted with running for president in 2011, his popularity was concentrated among the sizable share of Republicans who thought that President Obama was foreign born or a Muslim or both."[132]

In 2010, at the urging of Donald Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen, the National Enquirer began promoting a potential Trump presidential campaign, and with Cohen's involvement, the tabloid began questioning Obama's birthplace and citizenship.[134]

In March 2011, during an interview on Good Morning America, Donald Trump said he was seriously considering running for president, that he was a "little" skeptical of Obama's citizenship, and that someone who shares this view should not be so quickly dismissed as an "idiot"[135] (as Trump considers the term "birther" to be "derogatory"[136]). Trump added, "Growing up no one knew him",[135] a claim ranked Pants-on-Fire by Politifact.[137] Later, Trump appeared on The View repeating several times that "I want him [Obama] to show his birth certificate." He speculated that "there [was] something on that birth certificate that [Obama] doesn't like", a comment which host Whoopi Goldberg described as "the biggest pile of dog mess I've heard in ages."[138] On the March 30, 2011, edition of CNN Newsroom, anchor Suzanne Malveaux commented on Trump's statements, pointing out that she had made a documentary for which she had gone to Hawaii and spoken with people who knew Obama as a child.[139][140] In an NBC TV interview broadcast on April 7, 2011, Trump said he would not let go of the issue, because he was not satisfied that Obama had proved his citizenship.[141] After Trump began making his views public, he was contacted by Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily, who was reportedly on the phone with Trump every day for a week, providing Trump with a "birther primer", answers to questions, and advice.[142] After Obama released his long-form birth certificate on April 27, 2011, Trump said "I am really honored and I am really proud, that I was able to do something that nobody else could do."[143]

On October 24, 2012, Trump offered to donate five million dollars to the charity of Obama's choice in return for the publication of his college and passport applications before October 31, 2012.[144]

On September 16, 2016, as the Republican Party presidential nominee, Trump conceded that "President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Period." Trump gave himself credit for putting the controversy to rest and also repeated a false claim that Hillary Clinton, his opponent in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and one of Obama's opponents in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries, had started the controversy concerning Obama's place of birth. While those who did so were Clinton supporters, there is no evidence of Clinton or her campaign questioning Obama's birthplace.[145]
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4  Sean Treacy    one month ago

 We should clean up red meat crap like this from angry partisans  that now dominates the FP. Get rid of it. It has no value, so if would not be a loss.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


JohnRussell
Willjay9
devangelical
JumpDrive
Karri
Tacos!
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Texan1211


352 visitors