Stop Making Me Defend President Trump! Those Stupid Tweets Are Many Things, But They Aren’t “Racist”

CNN called them racist yesterday (so did Huffpo, but you know—Huffpo.). That’s not journalism. You tell the public about a statement, and you let others of note or credibility characterize it. It is particularly unethical journalism to cross the line into characterizing a statement and to characterize it falsely to conform to a false narrative or “big lie,” which the “Trump is a racist” assertion is.

Ann Althouse, bless her, saved me the time of explaining why yesterday’s stupid tweets, which I posted about here, are not racist in her first blog post this morning. No one should have to explain that the tweets weren’t racist, since they weren’t, and have no characteristic of racism whatsoever. Critics who choose that cheap route should have to explain why the tweets are racist, using the actual definition, which the accusation defies. Here is Althouse, after repeating the original set of tweets:

…He’s Donald Trump; he doubled down. From 11 hours ago — a 2-part tweet (1, 2):

So sad to see the Democrats sticking up for people who speak so badly of our Country and who, in addition, hate Israel with a true and unbridled passion. Whenever confronted, they call their adversaries, including Nancy Pelosi, “RACIST.” Their disgusting language….. ….and the many terrible things they say about the United States must not be allowed to go unchallenged. If the Democrat Party wants to continue to condone such disgraceful behavior, then we look even more forward to seeing you at the ballot box in 2020!

1. Who is he talking about? He doesn’t name names, so it’s an invitation for others to do the defining. I see many people talking about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and expressing outrage that Trump would speak of her as an immigrant when she was born in the United States. But he didn’t name her. His words exclude her. She’s really got a hold on people’s mind!

2. What, exactly, is supposed to be racist here? Clearly, these tweets cause some readers to feel that racism is being expressed, but it’s hard to find it in these words. I see “RACIST” but that’s in the context of ostensibly sticking up for Nancy Pelosi. Some Democrats are calling her racist, and that shows how unfairly quick they are to see racism. Defending Pelosi, he implicitly defends himself.

3. Is it xenophobia? He’s not saying get out and stay out. He’s saying don’t criticize the United States if you immigrated from a worse country. Go back to that place, fix it, and “The come back and show us… how it is done.” He’s welcoming the immigrant back, after these steps are taken. Of course, it’s unrealistic to expect someone to return to a place they left and become involved in changing that place, but it’s a figure of speech. He seems to be saying that those who were not born here, who chose to move here, have a special obligation to express love for America, that they should tone down their criticism of America.

4. If telling these Congresswomen to tone it down is wrong, Nancy Pelosi was wrong too. (See “Tensions Between Pelosi and Progressive Democrats of ‘the Squad’ Burst Into Flame” (NYT).) So, again, Trump lines himself up with Pelosi. How do you defend Pelosi without defending Trump? In this view, it’s a clever (and cruel) rhetorical move by Trump.

Good job. I’ll go along with cruel, though the episode is more stupid and self-destructive than cruel, but cruelty isn’t racism.

I checked Ann’s comments, and was surprised to see them supporting or defending Trump by about a 3-1 margin. Here’s an example:

He clearly does not live by the ‘less is more’ principal. I wish he did. He’d be at 60% approval if he did. But that said, I’ve learned to just sit back and watch what happens every time Trump says THE BIG THING and the media goes all breathless, and Dems go all breathless and it’s all we hear for days and days or weeks and weeks and something has got to change so let’s change the entire country starting with impeaching this guy for bad thoughts stated indelicately.

What he said is true. Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Ayanna Pressley all have little love for this country as it. They want to change it and not in a small way. Entirely. And they regularly display racism (anti-white), sexism (anti-male), and anti-semitism. It’s fine with the media and young Dems if you’re a progressive and say these things, and apparently some racism is good racism and some racism is bad racism. But for most Americans of all shades, it is what it is. Hateful. Distasteful. These congresspeople hate America. Using their own words to describe the Green New Deal: “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.” Watch Tlaib sometime. She’s a mess of a person. And she does not like you.

Trump tweets for reaction. Again- he’s got everyone focused on these 4 people who empirically do not like this country as is. I’m going to get past this breathless Monday to see how this actually plays out long term.

That’s pretty deft analysis, and accurate too.

To be fair, this idiotic statement, by  a Congresswoman from my home state of Massachusetts, and one of the four Democrats implicitly targeted by Trumps’ tweets, isn’t racist either. It embraces stereotypes, opposes free thought,  shows an obsession with race and a belief that races should be pitted against each other, and it is even more stupid than Trump’s tweets, but it’s not racist:

It also, I suspect, more objectionable to Americans than what Trump is saying.

157 thoughts on “Stop Making Me Defend President Trump! Those Stupid Tweets Are Many Things, But They Aren’t “Racist”

  1. How dare you defend him when he’s a raging racist – not just a racist, but a RAGING racist? We know he is, Charles “pause this presidency” Blow(job) said so!

    In 2004 this kind of nakedly hateful rhetoric was considered outlying, as Michelle Malkin (strident, but often fairly sharp) pointed out in regarding lefty cartoonist and blunt instrument (I think that’s a fair comparison since his columnists usually are not at all subtle and don’t try to be)Ted Rall:
    http://michellemalkin.com/2004/07/08/the-buck-naked-bigotry-of-ted-rall/

    Today, it’s gone mainstream. “Raging racist,” “impeach the motherfucker,” “smash the patriarchy” and endless hashtags “#fucktrump” “#votebluetoendthisnightmare” and so on, all regularly coming from the keyboards of Joe Average, Joe Media, and members of Congress. Hatred fuels rage, rage fuels craziness, and craziness fuels violence. I still find it ironic that the same idiots who spew this venom complain and groan when the other side gives them a dose of their own medicine. I wonder if there is something we could title “the Good Haters Privilege.” Maybe it’s a subset of the Saint’s Excuse, or “It’s For a Good Cause,” but I’m not sure the idea of “what’s wrong is REALLY wrong when done in the wrong cause, but GREAT when done in the right cause” fully fits those categories.

  2. Have seen a bumper sticker “Make America Brown Again”. The car was not from California.

    What is a white person, who grew up with and worked with a larger than national average amount of brown people with little racial animosity, supposed to infer from this stuff and these people referenced by the President? Seems to me, people like me stand accused of being the problem.

    What is the goal of these individuals so inarticulately pointed to by the President? Why do they never take the side of or defend the US Constitution or US citizens of any color? Why do they attack or ignore primarily capitalist positive economics and known paths to relative stability and prosperity for all? Why do they seek emotional mob rule over the rule of law?

    My answers are many to the above. The bottom line is they want to undo the US. Their ideology is one built on envy, redistribution that is more akin to thievery, and a system designed to be punitive to anyone having enough power to inhibit or stop their revolution. Any voice in opposition is the enemy. If they achieve enough power, a la the dear colleagues Obama letter, the government will never be of, by, and for anyone, but them…just like the many despotic governments around the world.

    To be clear, the President is in many ways foolish and distasteful, but it seems he is interested in American interests first. This is what they all truly hate with an undying bitterness.

    • What is the goal of these individuals so inarticulately pointed to by the President? Why do they never take the side of or defend the US Constitution or US citizens of any color? Why do they attack or ignore primarily capitalist positive economics and known paths to relative stability and prosperity for all? Why do they seek emotional mob rule over the rule of law?

      Because their object is to erase whiteness. It is ‘a war on whiteness’ which is their own term, not mine (or ours). Why this is coming about requires a significant and demanding back-tracking. The examination of causal chains of ideas and activism. The issue is ultimately metaphysical. I am not making this up. If we wish to understand what is going on, and the loss of our own sense of value, our un-mooring from it, a demanding intellectual work must be undertaking. When it is understood, then it must be communicated and taught to others.

      To understand what motivates those who work in undermining projects, one must examine ressentiment, a primary motivator, but one that remains invisible and shrowuded from the one who is possessed by it:

      Quotes from Max Scheler:

      Existential envy which is directed against the other person’s very nature, is the strongest source of ressentiment. It is as if it whispers continually: “I can forgive everything, but not that you are— that you are what you are—that I am not what you are—indeed that I am not you.” This form of envy strips the opponent of his very existence, for this existence as such is felt to be a “pressure,” a “reproach,” and an unbearable humiliation. In the lives of great men there are always critical periods of instability, in which they alternately envy and try to love those whose merits they cannot but esteem. Only gradually, one of these attitudes will predominate. Here lies the meaning of Goethe’s reflection that “against another’s great merits, there is no remedy but love.”

      To understand how self-defeating, self-undermining, self-abnegating currents of idea and sentiment have come to be accepted within the majority population, and why they turn against their own interests and cooperate in destructive projects, one must grasp ‘mendacity’ as defined by Scheler:

      Beyond all conscious lying and falsifying, there is a deeper “organic mendacity.” Here the falsification is not formed in consciousness, but at the same stage of the mental process as the impressions and value feelings themselves: on the road of experience into consciousness. There is “organic mendacity” whenever a man’s mind admits only those impressions which serve his “interest” or his instinctive attitude. Already in the process of mental reproduction and recollection, the contents of his experience are modified in this direction. He who is “mendacious” has no need to lie! In his case, the automatic process of forming recollections, impressions, and feelings is involuntarily slanted, so that conscious falsification becomes unnecessary.

      It is not hard to see that the mendacity he refers to arises when self-interest is at work: one can trick oneself and thus lie to oneself. But how is it that, now, we self-trick ourselves when the act of self-trickery (lying to the self) in fact operates against our own interest? This is a cognitive-dissonance issue. One participates in self-undermining and, through some sentimental acrobatics, feels that one is doing the right thing when one is not.

      The entire structure needs to be examined: how it is that the Self has become wedded to false-narratives and ‘invests’ in them.

      • I take it is your position that those seeking non-whiteness are attempting convince enough white folks they are the problem to the point they subconsciously lie to themselves affirming that false narrative. Whites will then willingly assist in the destruction of the society they have, largely, built regardless of its negative implications for them or overall societal well-being. Influencing to the point of self-delusion of the majority under attack comes in the form of propaganda from the early adopters of this self-destructive behavior.

        • Frankly all of this is an enormous project: to understand how our present has come to be. Certainly I repeat myself often, not only because the repetition is necessary in an environment in which the ideas seem to be new, but to keep reminding myself. I became interested in the examination of our present primarily through two books which turned me around: Ideas Have Consequences (Richard Weaver) and Slouching Toward Gomorrah (Robert Bork).

          Weaver’s approach is essentially metaphysical: the evolution of decadence is as a result of idea-
          deterioration. That is, strong defining ideas, of the sort that circumscribe the concepts of life-value, become weakened or corrupted. Bad idea-evolution has bad consequences. He is a neo-Platonist and he uses Platonic terms of discourse. And I gather that his great influence on conservatism has been in prodding people to return to the definition of ‘first principles’: to come back to bedrock. To ground oneself in solid ideas.

          Bork offered me a critical perspective of a ‘culture-warrior’ who argued from such a position of solidity. He ruthlessly and acidly critiqued the infantilism of much of Sixties degeneration and offered an explanation of how people can become *captured* by emotive-romantic sentiments that, in my view, correspond to the idea behind ‘selling one’s patrimony for a mess of pottage’. This is an enormous and consequential issue because it means (in my view) trading in metaphysical and transcendental value for the immediate pleasures and transitory offerings of the mutable world.

          Zoltar used to refer to ‘dumbing down’. But this seemed to me much more than just not being exposed to good literature in school. Dumbing down is what happens, inevitably, when one trades in one’s transcendental patrimony for the lures and enticements of sensational existence. And this is where my sharpest criticisms kick in: America, as it has become a perverted Americanopolis has become ‘infested’ with a great deal that ‘dumbs-down’. If one desired to trace that causal chain back, one could begin studying the technical-psychological philosophy of Edward Bernays. In the early 20th century as ‘the advertising world’ was born, there began the social, cultural and metaphysical process of inducing the mass to ‘sell its patrimony for a mess of pottage’. This involves the most insidious use of media and propaganda tools in psychological war against transcendental conceptions.

          In the evolution of things, in the downward turning, in the loss of higher conception for what are essentially the mutable pleasures of the flesh man is made a slave:

          “Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but, what is worse, as many masters as he has vices.” – St. Augustine, City of God

          I work with these strains of idea in defining a *picture* of what is going on in our present.

          Now, here is the difficult part. As we have been seduced and have agreed to offer up transcendental value for the ‘mess of pottage’ that is a symbol of the loss of solid value but also the intellectual (intellectus) capacity to recognize it, our society and its structures are being simultaneously undermined! It is ‘all of a piece’ as the saying goes. One thing fits together with another. One loss in one area ramifies into many different areas.

          The difficult area — for me, and it really is difficult — is to describe both spiritual degeneration and link it with civic and cultural degeneration, but even more to link it with civic, social, and demographic contamination. Here, I turn back to the (admittedly very controversial) analysis offered by Madison Grant in ‘The Passing of the Great Race’. This involves the uncomfortable notion of the ‘browning of America’. And this is a complex, difficult and fraught area to work in. What I want to mention is that most of the figures who are now ‘favorite enemies’ and the ‘public enemies’ of today, on the political right, are dealing in these controversial areas. To say ‘race is real, race matters’ is the simplest of declarative phrases, but it causes whole monuments to shake and tremble.

          In this sense though ‘the brown masses’ show their hand when they seek to modify, topple, destroy the symbolic issues of what they see through eyes of ressentiment. It is not hard to see that the imago of America, for a great long time, was entirely that of an Anglo-saxon society. Everything from happy (white) families with tables full of the bounty of the fields and the very biological product of that bounty and the civilizational structure capable of producing it: all this because resented. Desired, envied, but also arousing profound psychological ressentiment. The essential jealous is, of course, for the white body. Desired, envied, but resented, it must be undermined: contaminated, penetrated.

          These are reversals if you wish — transvaluations — of the kinds of ideas that Frantz Fanon was working with. But here I employ Fanon as an *emblem* of an entire wave of sociological ressentiment. The desire is that of overturning that wretched order of things that, in fact, civilized the brown body (as they would say) and which gave it even its critical tools! It is a ‘hatred’ that, according to Goethe, can only be resolved through ‘love’. And as I suppose you might clearly see, it is this cultural and biological ressentiment that is the *mood* most operative in our present. Who embodies it in the chemically pure form? Charles Blow. He drips with it. He is slow-cooked in it.

          Even by mentioning his name (Grant), by the merest reference to the notions he worked with which have been roundly dismissed to the point that his name cannot be mentioned in polite society, I am aware that I commit a social crime.

          I think that what Trump did is, in its really bizarre and strangely mercurial way, rather ingenious. (Mercury is a messenger). He laid plain the ‘real truth’ of the matter, and that real truth is excruciatingly difficult for middle-class America even to hear, and far more difficult to integrate. The ‘brown world’ is consumed by envy and resentment whether it knows it or understands it, and as a psychological social mechanism has dedicated itself to ‘blind destruction’ while its motives are concealed in universal and even in Christian terms. (And you know how Nietzsche dealt with Christian ressentiment!).

          So, I hope that this has explained some part of how I have come to conceive things. My project is to define what is needed for ‘European renewal’ and ‘European renovation’. To define that is to distinguish it from what it is now. I reestablish hierarchy that I define arising essentially and fundamentally in metaphysical terms. But I also say that any people, every people, has a sovereign right to define itself and defend itself. Therefore defense is a primary consideration in my developing philosophical-cultural position.

          There is a war on, there really is, and it must be defined and understood. Waking up and *seeing* behind the projections that we see on the screen is the first necessary step.

          • A little bird told me you were taking my name in vain.

            Alizia wrote, Zoltar used to refer to ‘dumbing down’. But this seemed to me much more than just not being exposed to good literature in school. Dumbing down is what happens, inevitably, when one trades in one’s transcendental patrimony for the lures and enticements of sensational existence. And this is where my sharpest criticisms kick in: America, as it has become a perverted Americanopolis has become ‘infested’ with a great deal that ‘dumbs-down’. If one desired to trace that causal chain back, one could begin studying the technical-psychological philosophy of Edward Bernays. In the early 20th century as ‘the advertising world’ was born, there began the social, cultural and metaphysical process of inducing the mass to ‘sell its patrimony for a mess of pottage’. This involves the most insidious use of media and propaganda tools in psychological war against transcendental conceptions.”

            Until you actually take the time to read Iserbyt’s book “the deliberate dumbing down of america” you won’t be able to fully understand what she was talking about when she came up with the phrase dumbing down of america.

            So let it be written…

            Fin.

            • I have read some of her essays and extracts from books. Her YouTube talks also give the essence of her analysis.

              She represents an ‘angle of view’ in the critical effort to *see* and understand ‘what is happening in our present’. Asterisks and quotes are there to put special emphasis on the interpretive effort. Seeing is fraught endeavor. She has tended to odd extremes of conspiratorial thought as time has gone on. I have not tried to figure it out but I always keep in mind that these Internet types, and certainly the YouTubers, mold their discourse to conform to the market of buyers who pay for the content. There is also I think the issue that our present is rather sick in itself. That is to say that we live in pathologies which we have come to believe is normalcy. Seeing and interpreting critically is, in the best of circumstances, the first steps toward ‘getting better’ or ‘being healed’. ‘Critique is Divine’. The critical attitude is a proper religious attitude, my dear child Zoltar. If you could see the angles as they dance you’d know better!

              Remember the words of Isaiah: “Go and tell this people, ‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’”

              Muddled interpretation, and self-interest that obscures = the deformed patriot.

              And: “…if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”

              I think these ideas are essentially metaphysical and can be taken — as Richard Weaver takes them — in a more abstract, philosophical sense. And that is why I say:

              “And this is where my sharpest criticisms kick in: America, as it has become a perverted Americanopolis has become ‘infested’ with a great deal that ‘dumbs-down’. If one desired to trace that causal chain back, one could begin studying the technical-psychological philosophy of Edward Bernays. In the early 20th century as ‘the advertising world’ was born, there began the social, cultural and metaphysical process of inducing the mass to ‘sell its patrimony for a mess of pottage’. This involves the most insidious use of media and propaganda tools in psychological war against transcendental conceptions.

              I assume that you do not drool when you type, but I doubt that you get much of what is referred to. This is not an insult but an indicator of what results from ‘dumbing down’.

              What is it that quickens the mind? Elevates it to ‘proper seeing’?

    • AOC and her Squad are sock puppets for the Justice Democrats. The guy who said the Green New Deal was really about changing the entire U.S. economy. He’s a founder of the Justice Democrats and AOC’s chief of staff. These people are Communists, clear and simple. They are foxes in the Congressional hen house. (Isn’t it interesting all the mouth pieces, er squad, are women being manipulated by guys?) They want to eliminate capitalism and replace it with communism. In the United States. They’re not idiots and they’re not delusional. They are vicious authoritarians. And they’ll be more than happy to break as many eggs as are necessary to make their omelet. I’m surprised there aren’t tee shirts of AOC or Tlaib or Omar posterized like Che or Obama.

  3. See, I understand the sentiment of Trump’s tweets, and frankly, I think he’s mostly right in his assessment. Certain (in fact many) progressives want to make America a lot like the theoretical country that a whole lot of other countries aspire to be, but are actually exceedingly crappy places, are failing or are on the verge of failing. The sentiment of “if you think those places are better, go live there” really isn’t an unethical sentiment. This world has options, and Trump saying “put your money where your mouth is” and “let your feet do the talking” is fair. That these people have CHOSEN to live in a nation that is decidedly OPPOSITE of the hell-holes built on the philosophies they LOVE, is a wake up call that they should shut up and love our free-market, liberty protecting system.

    • (oops, forgot to add).

      While Trump is pretty much 90% right in his statement, as President, I don’t think it was his place to say it. Or at least not say it so ineloquently.

      • But to be even clearer, I think Trump is playing game master for the Democrat Civil War. This is a couple of tweets now that he’s invoked Pelosi’s name in a semi-supportive manner in the context of the DNC’s squabbling.

        I think he’s just trying to stoke their anger towards each other. Which I think will work to a degree, but it will mostly work against him.

        • “While Trump is pretty much 90% right in his statement, as President, I don’t think it was his place to say it. Or at least not say it so ineloquently.”

          Michael, I think the tweets were fairly eloquent, in the sense he said what he meant to say. Secondly, I’d ask you to state why you think it’s not his place to say it. Ann Althouse uses the term “civility bullshit” to describe the tactic employed (most often by the left) to hush dissent by calling it “uncivil” most often after they’ve launched a terribly uncivil fusillade. And “It’s not presidential” doesn’t cut it any more. How much of the entire Obama era was presidential? The Clinton oval office? The Kennedy White House? The Jackson White House. I think “presidential” is a term that is subject to constant re-assessment. But Jack’s an expert on that.

          • Because, while he generally captures what I think is an essential gut reaction of a large swathe of the population that still maintains traditional American values to the point of being offended by people who want to replace those values with value sets *foreign* to America, those new value-sets are still espoused by enough people that the leader of the nation needs to pick and choose his words far more carefully when addressing the other side of the aisle.

            • Why tip toe around when the other side is tossing squibs? What was Obama’s line about bringing a gun to a knife fight or vice versa? I forget.

              • Well, for one thing, the manner in which he said it has clearly been used to completely divert from the actual intent, which is a derivative, ultimately, of the old (and accurate) argument:

                Socialism has failed everywhere it was tried.

                He just buffoonishly tried to couch that message inside of a vehicle meant to exacerbate the current DNC in-fighting.

                His objective wasn’t met.

    • “That these people have CHOSEN to live in a nation that is decidedly OPPOSITE of the hell-holes built on the philosophies they LOVE, is a wake up call that they should shut up and love our free-market, liberty protecting system.”

      Who are you talking about? Of the four most likely candidates, only one is an immigrant; Tlaib was born in Detroit, AOC was born in New York, and Pressley was born in Chicago.

      • Aaaand if AOC wants to live in a socialist state, or Pressley wants to go someplace she’ll never see a white face again, or Tlaib wants to go where the Muzzies rule, they can all do it. They haven’t.

        • What’s your point?

          Look, you aren’t saying that Trump isn’t racist, you’re saying the congresswomen are bad…. Which is a point I’d be more than willing to express myself, if in a different way. But their badness is irrelevant. If you can’t argue against the comments being racist, then you’re basically saying they deserve racism because they’re bad…. And I don’t think I can get behind that.

            • I mean, you can, if you really want to.

              But I think at some point Trump derangement cuts both ways, and I think that reasonable people sitting on the sidelines might be able to see how telling a group of non-white Americans to “go back to their country” *might* be perceived as racist. This is a supremely shitty look for you.

              • K Humble.

                I for one thought you knew not to take Trump literally, after all these years.

                While such a statement is unethical because of the ways in can be interpreted (as I’ve already mentioned), Trump is expressing a generalized sentiment about progressives that idolize foreign systems of government and society.

                And you know this.

                But by all means keep focusing on a literal reading while I’ve already identified my stance that his composition of this is unethical.

                • We can’t continue to explain away obvious, literal, racist comments with a “he doesn’t really mean it”. Frankly, at some point it rings hollow. At some point, we recognize the pattern. At some point he has to get better… Or we have to start criticizing… Whether you believe that he believes this or not, he is weaponizing racism. Look at the comments here, he has people saying “Maybe they should go back to their country” when referring to born-American citizens. The hell is wrong with you? That isn’t healthy!

                  We constantly mocked Obama’s ridiculously flat learning curve, and the difference between how we treated that and how we treat Trump shouldn’t be as simple as “this is our guy”. And if this isn’t indicative of a flat curve and is instead indicative of how he actually feels, then maybe he shouldn’t be your guy.

                  • “Frankly, at some point it rings hollow. At some point, we recognize the pattern.”

                    Can you list all the others in this pattern? Sorry, my google search only returns everything the media really really really wishes was racist, but actually aren’t.

                    “Or we have to start criticizing”

                    I mean, I can repeat myself (yet again) if you really need me to: his tweet is unethical because of what he said.

                    I mean, I know it’s your brand to keep harping on things even in spite of having been shown otherwise.

                    So if repeating my assessment as though I hadn’t already made it makes you feel like you’ve scored some points, then go bed in peace tonight, you’re up by 3 or 4 now.

                    • The pattern of assuming that brown Americans weren’t Americans?

                      Obama, during the birther fiasco,
                      Judge Curiel, who Trump called the “Mexican Judge” despite him being born in Chicago,
                      Tlaib, AOC and/or Pressley, right now.

                      How many instances do you need?

                    • “Judge Curiel, who Trump called the “Mexican Judge” despite him being born in Chicago.” I have to ding this. “Mexican judge” in Trump-speak means “judge of Mexican heritage,” not “non-American.”

                    • That’s essentially 0 for 0.

                      The instance in question doesn’t count if the other two don’t, and given that the Obama smear arose long before Trump used it, there’s no reason to assume (let alone none blatantly asserted) that Trump used the Born-in-Kenya slur BECAUSE of Obama’s ethnic background nor can you assume Trump’s identification of Curiel’s ancestry as being a slur because of being ethnically related to Mexicans, but rather because of potential biases present because of the touchy subject of the wall and immigration.

                      So, yeah, some more instances might be useful to bolster your claim that this is more than just typically sloppy rhetoric by Trump.

                    • I call the reference to the birther thing a false analogy, too. Skin color had NOTHING to do with whether Obama was an American citizen who had a right to run for POTUS. This assumption is pure bias.

                    • Well, you’d be wrong twice.

                      Look, you can’t exactly say that I’m your typical knee-jerk progressive. What I see here is some extremely weird wagon circling…. Just last night, Jack was willing to say (and still will, to be fair) that these tweets were stupid, counterproductive, and represented a flat learning curve.

                      I don’t understand this…. It’s like you’re ideologically invested in nothing ever being called racist… Because *that’s* the bridge too far. Half the people commenting here has said that they think “racist” has lost all meaning, or they don’t care what people think of them, but you guys are going balls-to-the-wall for a guy that told brown people he disagreed with politically to “go home to their own countries”.

                      Ken White has something called the “Rule of Goats”, and I love it. You see, if you Fuck a goat, even if you say you’re doing it ironically, you’re still a goat-Fucker.

                      “I don’t know how this happens, all of this racially charged language keeps on falling outta this guys mouth, but there’s nothing to it, right? He’s just doing it to own the libs! Look at them get all angry at his racially charged language!”

                      Can we just… You know…. Not… Pretend that what’s happening in front of our faces isn’t happening in front of our faces? That’d be swell.

                    • “Look, you can’t exactly say that I’m your typical knee-jerk progressive.”

                      Ive not even remotely made this claim.

                      “What I see here is some extremely weird wagon circling…. Just last night, Jack was willing to say (and still will, to be fair) that these tweets were stupid, counterproductive, and represented a flat learning curve.
                      I don’t understand this….”

                      Definitely weird to label something as wagon-circling when Jack condemned his tweets, I’ve said his tweets are unethical. I mean, all we’ve done is disagreed with you on why the tweets are unethical. But here you are, after insisting you aren’t making this a “loyalty” thing, coming back around and making it a loyalty thing…

                      “It’s like you’re ideologically invested in nothing ever being called racist… Because *that’s* the bridge too far.”

                      I mean, you can keep working on building that strawman all day. Let me know when it’s finished.

                      “Half the people commenting here has said that they think “racist” has lost all meaning,”

                      It’s lost quite a bit of meaning…it’s been expanded to include alot of non-racist content and it’s been wildly used as debate stoppers. But that’s irrelevant here.

                      “or they don’t care what people think of them,”

                      I understand their frustrations

                      “but you guys are going balls-to-the-wall for a guy that told brown people he disagreed with politically to “go home to their own countries”.”

                      I mean, he told some people to go home to their countries…I’m not sure you’ve made a definitive case that it’s because they are brown or whether or not he was even speaking only to “brown” people.

                      “Ken White has something called the “Rule of Goats”, and I love it. You see, if you Fuck a goat, even if you say you’re doing it ironically, you’re still a goat-Fucker. “I don’t know how this happens, all of this racially charged language keeps on falling outta this guys mouth, but there’s nothing to it, right? He’s just doing it to own the libs! Look at them get all angry at his racially charged language!”
                      Can we just… You know…. Not… Pretend that what’s happening in front of our faces isn’t happening in front of our faces? That’d be swell.”

                      I mean, that’s a cool rule and all, but it’s hardly applicable to speech. Plenty of things can be consistently said with irony without ever making the speaker an actual believer. I mean, you can begin to question whether or not the speaker is actually speaking ironically or not, but I think you need quantity of these comments. Trump just doesn’t have that. Earlier you’ve said he “weaponized racism”. No, he’s weaponized the character flaw in Leftists that makes them knee jerk reactionaries to literally EVERYTHING even remotely spinnable as a controversial. And uses that weapon with glee. This time he used the weapon in a very unethical manner. But not a racist one.

                    • “Definitely weird to label something as wagon-circling when Jack condemned his tweets,”

                      Well it would make more sense if you included the next line. My point was, and has been reinforced again and again, that this is a strange wagon circling because it is so selective. Everyone has given up on Trump being good. He’s a boor, he’s rude, he’s poorly spoken, he’s bombastic, he’s an asshole. But someone mentions the “R” word, and all of a sudden the wagons resemble Gibraltar. I have no idea why people are so invested in *this*, the last seeming vestige of perceived goodness. It’s almost like you want to be able to say: “Sure, Trump personifies every possible character flaw known to man, but at least he isn’t racist!”

                      “I mean, he told some people to go home to their countries…I’m not sure you’ve made a definitive case that it’s because they are brown or whether or not he was even speaking only to “brown” people.”

                      I started to respond to this about three different ways, the sighed and deleted the comments each time. I don’t know how to make this point to you, because I don’t think you’re being reasonable. If you can’t see how telling born American Citizens to go back to their country is even bad never mind racist, because you seem to be defending the act itself, not saying that it isn’t racist, then I think you’re beyond help.

                      “I mean, that’s a cool rule and all, but it’s hardly applicable to speech. Plenty of things can be consistently said with irony without ever making the speaker an actual believer. ”

                      It’s ABSOLUTELY applicable to speech. It was designed for speech. The whole point is that it doesn’t matter whether deep down in your private parts you don’t actually believe what you’re saying, because actions speak louder than words. If you want people to like you, and you think that people like edgyness, and so you start telling everyone to fuck off, then if doesn’t matter that you’re only pretending to be edgy, you’ve told everyone to fuck off and now they don’t like you.

                    • “Well it would make more sense if you included the next line.”

                      Did you not read far enough?

                      “My point was, and has been reinforced again and again, that this is a strange wagon circling because it is so selective. Everyone has given up on Trump being good. He’s a boor, he’s rude, he’s poorly spoken, he’s bombastic, he’s an asshole. But someone mentions the “R” word, and all of a sudden the wagons resemble Gibraltar.”

                      Maybe people also disagree with the claim of racism when racism isn’t present? I mean, as mentioned before, you literally decided one day to pretend like trump isn’t poorly spoken or that the rule of take him seriously but not literally doesn’t apply.

                      “I have no idea why people are so invested in *this*, the last seeming vestige of perceived goodness. It’s almost like you want to be able to say: “Sure, Trump personifies every possible character flaw known to man, but at least he isn’t racist!”

                      Straw man.

                      “I started to respond to this about three different ways, the sighed and deleted the comments each time. I don’t know how to make this point to you, because I don’t think you’re being reasonable. If you can’t see how telling born American Citizens to go back to their country is even bad never mind racist, because you seem to be defending the act itself, not saying that it isn’t racist, then I think you’re beyond help.”

                      MMkay, I’ve addressed this something like 5 times now. I know you aren’t a stupid person, but you are certainly doing your best to act like one. I’m not going to requote myself about the unethicality of the tweet, but that it isn’t unethical for the reasons you think. But here you are, beating the horse again that I’m defending the tweet. Go find someone else to be insufferable with, let the grown up have a discussion.

                      We’re done on this topic.

        • See, I wasn’t aware being born in America was a choice.

          Alternately, I think you might be saying that they could have moved somewhere that more conforms with their ideals at some point in their life… Which is certainly something. I mean, “If you don’t like the way the nation of your birth operates, you should leave it.” seems very much at odds with, for instance, “Go back to your country and fix it.” Especially when, and I’m just saying, their country *is* America.

          • The alternate is an accurate assessment.

            You’ve done a good job the past few years applying the essential Rule of the Trump presidency:

            Don’t take him literally, take him seriously.

            You’ve recently seemed to slip into the analysis that take him literally, not seriously.

            You see, I’ve already mentioned his lack of eloquence in this tweet is what makes it unethical.

      • HT
        I seem to recall many including Gillibrand of New York claiming all Americans except native Americans are immigrants. Thus, if America is a nation of immigrants Trump could be referring to their ancestral homeland to which they personally identify.

        As near as I can tell none of the squad are indigenous persons so they are by earlier claims to be immigrants.

        If we conflate illegal immigrants with legal immigrants why can’t we we combine all non native persons as hailing from some other country. Maybe they originated from a shithole country.

        I say we can’t claim we are all immigrants for one purpose and Americans for another.

          • HT
            You claimed he said ” go back to the country you came from” but failed to include the other clause which said fix their problems and come back and show us how to do it. The statement is similar to saying stop criticizing and start delivering solutions.

            That is not racist in my book. It is not a rationalization either because I interpret the statement as nothing more than “put up or shut up”. Those who want to see racism will. I just ask all those claiming he is racist for even one example of a policy that he advocates that suggests that non whites are to be considered less human.

            The execution of existing law cannot be attributed as racist unless members of Congress are called the racists.

            • Chris… These are particularly painful, I’m really trying to disengage from this, because I don’t think much good can come of it at this point… but Wow. I mean…

              “You claimed he said ” go back to the country you came from” but failed to include the other clause which said fix their problems and come back and show us how to do it. ”

              Has *GOT* to be the weakest of possible takes. “Go back to where you came from” may be xenophobic as opposed to racist, or maybe you want to call it something else, but it’s something. Time and time again throughout history, “Go back to…” has been the clarion call of racist assholes who don’t like people who don’t look, talk or think like them, regardless of where they actually came from. Pretending this doesn’t exist is counterproductive because people know it. It’s… a meme. It’s like White Supremacy’s “1488” or Hamas saying “From the River to the Sea”. And I don’t know what kind of context could make things like that better, but it sure as hell wasn’t what he said. It doesn’t take a whole lot of thought to figure out how, at the very least, the perception of this as racist isn’t unreasonable. You aren’t going to be able to gaslight all the people not deeply invested in carrying water for Trump that this was, capital B, Bad, and whatever you want to call it, you can’t defend it in terms other than “it’s not the exact type of bigotry you’re portraying”. Take a bloody bow.

              And then from there it’s just a train of disjointed rationalizing and bias control:

              “The statement is similar to saying stop criticizing and start delivering solutions.”
              It doesn’t matter how similar two sentences are, what matters is how they’re different.

              “That is not racist in my book. It is not a rationalization either because I interpret the statement as nothing more than “put up or shut up”.”
              Get a new proofreader, and see above. If he had actually said that, I might be interested.

              “Those who want to see racism will. I just ask all those claiming he is racist for even one example of a policy that he advocates that suggests that non whites are to be considered less human.”
              This is almost word for word the “haters” rationalization, with a gigantic strawman thrown in: You think I’m want to see racism? That I think all whites are less than human? Seek professional help.

              And then, finally:

              “The execution of existing law cannot be attributed as racist unless members of Congress are called the racists.”

              The hell are you even talking about? No, seriously. Is there a congressional law requiring Trump to tweet in the most inept way possible.

              I mean, let’s be real here, the headline that Jack used to explain what Trump did the night before he posted this was something like: “In the Middle of Battle Between Democrats, Trump Strips Naked and Runs to the Middle of The Field.” For whatever reason, that pesky “R” word has caused some of your brains to liquefy and dribble down the side of your heads and now there are people not just defending Trump’s not-racist virtues, but Trump’s actions themselves. You are deranged.

  4. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/trump-is-a-racist-if-you-still-support-him-so-are-you/ar-AAEjTmq?ocid=spartandhp

    Look at this garbage. After the first statement, the author says before you start talking civility, put a sock in it, just like Dan Savage used to say “first off, fuck your feelings.”

    WTF are the president’s supporters, some with very good reasons for backing him over the other side, supposed to think, infer, or do? What’s the difference between this, and me writing, “The “Squad” are idiots, and if you back them, you’re an even bigger idiot because you follow idiots,” and following that with “before you try to argue, do me, and yourself, a big favor: shut the fuck up. It’s always better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” ?

    I have tried NOT to use those kind of tactics or that kind of language lately, because I don’t think either of those things accomplishes much as an initiatory tactic, but come on here. Robert Bork did the whole “maintain a dignified silence in the face of outrageous accusations” thing and it accomplished nothing but defeat. Brett Kavanaugh fought like a man fighting for his reputation and his professional life and ultimately prevailed. It doesn’t take a genius to see which gets more done.

    It also doesn’t take a genius to see that accusations of wrong thoughts or outrageous behavior do far more than substantive arguments about policy. Why reduce the enemy’s fortress with conventional artillery tactics when a nuke will wipe it out with less risk to your side? The thing is, at this point accusations by the right that the left is against the US and against ordinary folks are gaining traction and possibly becoming the lethal nuke that will wreck the left. I don’t see why we shouldn’t use them.

    • Time for the low road to get a little more trodden upon, eh? The high road has led to disaster my entire life for the GOP, since those on the low road have knocked out the bridge supports at every turn.

      The ‘low lifers’ have to understand that they personally will suffer from the tactics they use, and are NOT immune (although, practically speaking, they have been immune for most of my life as the ethical would not strike back)

    • The president is a racist, in his words and his actions.

      Before you go clutching your pearls and extolling the virtues of “civility,” let me say this: put a sock in it.

      Slightly shorter version: “My opinion is the only one that counts, and if you disagree you’re a racist like Trump, so shut up.”

      Uh huh. See this black l-shaped object on my hip? It says my opinion counts, too, and you can’t shut me up.

      • Shorter version still: “if you don’t have something liberal to say, then shut up, bigot.”

        Mmmhmm (hand drops to his own pistol), why don’t you just come ahead and TRY to shut me up?

  5. The object is to disentangle oneself from everything PC and coerced that surrounds the term ‘racist’.

    The term itself is a major obstacle that is placed in the path that stops one from accurate assessment and clear seeing. Until one can do this, one will be trapped and constrained by a word which circumscribes and determines perception (and certainly what one allows oneself to think and thus to say).

    There is a sort of force-field around that word that allows no one to penetrate it. When the word is used, the one it is used against collapses before it. Why is this? 1) Because the accusation is itself an evocation of an emoted sense of guiltiness. 2) Because everyone who sees clearly, everyone who can actually distinguish the objects and values in this world does, in fact, see life and people in terms that are ‘racialist’. But this perception has been made to seem so self-horrifyingly wrong that one immediately self-condemns.

    What is to be done? Investigate what a racialist perspective actually is, and why it is ethical and profoundly moral to see in realistic terms, which also includes — as one factor, just one — understanding the racial component in our own composition and in the composition of people in this world. In fact a ‘racist’ perspective is a wrong perspective because it is limited and limiting. There are a group of factors and traits that make up a given people and they are not the same from one people to the next.

    “Race is real, race matters” is a way to allow for the intelligent and rational perceptual capacity of thinking people to go to work on the deconstruction of the emotive term. But ‘race’ is definitely not the only factor.

    What horrifies the classic, indoctrinated Liberal of today, is a complex of ramifications that will necessarily surround getting out from under the crushing weight of self-condemnation (a muddled, interior mess of sentiments that are never quite visible and thus powerful) as one begins to think and see in realistic terms. That is, when one begins to slide out from under the crushing weight of constructed fantasy upheld by pillars fabricated out of romanticism.

    There is no doubt at all — at least as I see things — that Donald Trump is bringing out into the open the ‘real issue’ that is genuinely at stake here. Does he do this consciously and intellectually? It does not seem so. And yet millimeter by millimeter and inch by inch as each day passes more and more people begin to become aware — to see with some clarity — what is factually and really at stake.

    “Whites have gone from being about 90% of the US population in 1965 to about 60% today, and in many locations and age groups we are already a minority. Whites are projected to slip below 50% of the population around 2042. In a democracy, that inevitably means political disempowerment. (…) If white Americans want to see what life is like as a despised minority in a majority non-white society, they need only look at South Africa today, which was also touted as a rainbow nation.”

    Helloooooooooo in there. Is there anybody hoooooommmmeeeeeeee?

    We know where the classic American liberal stands. That stand is best expressed by Joe Biden — a vile traitor if he is seen really — in his now-famous speech about America’s inevitable future:

    What is amazing is that the so-called Conservative has no means to concretize, nor even to formulate, a countermand to these self-defined imperatives. That is, no platform within a clear and defined intellectual position that can oppose the romantic slop that determines perception in our present. What is this anchor that holds this odd individual to a view that is obviously erroneous? The answer is: The very same force that infuses the Hyper-Liberalist. It is sentimental and guilt-based and, as I say, romantic.

    It does not matter if what Trump is saying, nor what his base is perceiving, is ‘racist’ or ‘racialist’. Let it be what it is, and let it be a base upon which people begin to reconstruct and accurate picture of the world, and then of the Nation. It is happening. Whether you or anyone else can face it . . . or not.

    • “If white Americans want to see what life is like as a despised minority in a majority non-white society, they need only look at South Africa today, which was also touted as a rainbow nation.”

      They need not even look that far. Just look at Hawaii, which is minority white and has institutionalized racism. Look at a lot of the second-tier (and a few first-tier) cities, where the blacks run everything – badly – then blame the non-blacks for “white flight.” Don’t believe me? Do we really need to talk about the condition of New Orleans, or DC, or Baltimore when you move away from the tourist areas? Do we really need to talk about the black-dominated cities with no tourist areas to speak of and no reason, frankly, for anyone to visit, like Detroit or Newark or Camden?

      There’s not a black-dominated city in this nation that hasn’t fallen well short of its potential, and there’s not a black-dominated city in this nation whose leaders haven’t thrown a ton of accusations at the rural areas, at the suburbs, and at the governments where they DON’T dominate. They want more money for their failing schools, they want more money for community outreach, they want more money for this or that, because the rest of the world owes them, but it’s never enough and the places never seem to make any progress. They DON’T want the governments where they don’t dominate to help with law enforcement or anything like that, though, they say they’ve got it covered. Besides, state or Federal authorities might legitimately start cracking down on the gangs they allow a fairly free hand in exchange for keeping to their own areas. They DON’T want their cities to improve to the point where developers might come in and start buying up areas for gentrification, because they don’t want gentrification. Gentrification means rents go up, higher rents means their people get priced out, and there goes their guaranteed vote majority. Black politicians want their cities to stay broken, the whites to stay out, and the money to stay flowing.

  6. “Trump tweets for reaction.”

    There it is in a nutshell, President Trump is trolling the political left.

    It appears to me that the political left, in general, refuses to learn not to feed the trolls and instead they irrationally loose their collective mind.

  7. To assume that a person of color is foreign-born smells of racism. The problem is we don’t know who he’s talking about and we’re left to make inferences. If he’s referring to Ilhan Omar, then there’s no assumption; her immigration story is public record. If he’s talking about AOC, or Rashida Tlaib, or Ayanna Pressley, then I think it would be fair to say his remarks smell of racism.

    Now, he never says he’s referring to them – but he used the plural “Congresswomen”. Who else could he mean? There are two other foreign-born Democratic women in Congress, both in the Senate – Mazie Hirono and Tammy Duckworth. Hirono was born in Japan, hardly the kind of dysfunctional society Trump refers to in his tweet. Duckworth was born in Thailand, but her record as a politician and as a combat-wounded Blackhawk pilot don’t track with the kind of America-hating radical Trump describes.

    My conclusion: if his remarks don’t at least smell of racism, it would only be because he fails to make enough earthly sense to express a coherent thought.

        • “A reply no more substantive than knee-jerk cries of “racism!””

          Too bad you had to go there.

          DaveL,
          What blew completely over your head is that your “smells of racism” and his smells of TDS are equal in their rhetorical value and accuracy in that they are both opinions and NOT fact.

          I “think” that was the point joed68 was trying to make.

          • No, they are not equal. I have gone to great lengths to detail the strengths of the inferences drawn and consider alternative interpretations. That they are both opinion does not make them equal, unless we’re going to dispense with the rhetorical art of constructing well-reasoned arguments for the persuasion of others and instead simply allow one gut feeling to stand against another.

            • DaveL,
              Do you know what Hanlon’s Razor is?

              Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

              You and others are jumping straight to malice (it’s racist) while it’s really clear that stupidity (“he fails to make enough earthly sense to express a coherent thought”) is apparent. You’re making a conscious choice to infer because it’s Trump, if you aren’t aware of it, that’s the basis of TDS.

              When is the political left going to learn that Trump is trolling them and they are suckers for reacting emotionally to every thing that comes out of “his mouth”. Way too many emotionally reacting people from the political left are showing that they have low IQ’s and have a really hard time learning from their own experience. Albert Einstein is widely credited with saying, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”

              President Trumps trolling is exposing the false intellectual mask that the political left has been portraying for years, their constituency and their elected officials are full of imbeciles.

              Lastly you wrote,

              “No, they are not equal. I have gone to great lengths to detail the strengths of the inferences drawn and consider alternative interpretations.”

              I take that as kinda meaning that your opinion is fact because you argued it better than joed68. So if joed68 goes to “great lengths to detail the strengths of the inferences drawn and consider alternative interpretations” in his argument then I can assume that you’ll agree that your comment “smells of TDS”.

              Lastly: Trump is a rhetorical asshole and I really wish he’d stop his trolling.

              • That’s explicitly NOT what I did. My conclusion was that it was either one or the other. I did not dismiss the possibility he was merely incoherent. You’re the one reading more into that than I wrote down.

                • DaveL wrote, “That’s explicitly NOT what I did. My conclusion was that it was either one or the other. I did not dismiss the possibility he was merely incoherent.”

                  Aaaa, you mean that 26 word statement (“if his remarks don’t at least smell of racism, it would only be because he fails to make enough earthly sense to express a coherent thought”) after you spent two paragraphs (152 words) trying to show/imply that the tweets smelled of racism all based on inferred assumptions. Then you backed up your argument with“I have gone to great lengths to detail the strengths of the inferences drawn” and “unless we’re going to dispense with the rhetorical art of constructing well-reasoned arguments”. Honestly DaveL, based on how you were trying to show it smelled of racism and followup comments I thought you were discarding the can’t express a coherent thought all together. My sincere apologies if I misunderstood your intent to show that you were actually trying to present both sides in a relatively non-biased manner.

                  Maybe the right thing to say instead of going down the path you chose would have been to simply say that there is really no telling what Trump is trying to say without making all kinds of assumptions because Trump can’t express a coherent thought. You really wouldn’t get too much disagreement around here with a statement like that. 😉

          • I think you’re trying very hard to bury your head in the sand here.

            Dave did his homework… You can conveniently pretend that Trump left the door wide open as to the identities of the unnammed “progressive” “congresswomen” “fighting with Pelosi” are, but I can’t imagine how myopic one must be to actually think that. There are only three people in congress that are actually immigrants, and two of them aren’t described by Trump’s qualifiers. Meanwhile, the people he most likely was talking about aren’t actually immigrants, they’re just brown.

            So you have a choice, you can pretend that he was speaking only of Ilhan Omar, and that his comments weren’t racially motivated, or you can take a step back and realized that the same guy who spearheaded the birther conspiracy just assumed (up to) three American born congresswomen were immigrants because they were brown.

            I don’t think that’s particularly hard.

            • There’s a third alternative: He wrongly thought AOC and Tlaib (I think Pressley has to to be excluded) were immigrants because, like Omar, they have non-English names and present themselves as representatives of foreign immigrant communities. Stupid, unfair, and unethical? Check, check, check. Racist? Well, I can see how his comments can be construed that way, but such a construal relies on 1) an expansive definition of “racism” in which mistakenly thinking that someone is foreign-born because they have foreign names and foreign culture is racist, and 2) an alleged pattern of racist remarks. The alleged pattern is anything but established: Obama birtherism centered on his actually foreign father and early childhood abroad; Judge Curiel is “Mexican” by descent, and using “Mexican” to refer to such citizens is imprecise but common; Jack rightly mentioned Trump’s attack on Ted Cruz, who is white, which was based on Cruz having been born in Canada. What other examples are there that objectively fall into a pattern of racist remarks, such that these latest comments are obviously racist as well?

              • This is… Utterly exhausting. For the record, I have no idea what you think the difference between your third option and my second is. But on the off-chance you could actually enunciate something, I’ll just let you have it: Yes, I think that your option is probably what happened.

                Assuming that someone is from somewhere else because of the color of their skin or that their name sounds ethnic… has to be something. I really think the people here fighting virtuously in defense of words and meaning are precipitously navel gazing over this, but pick a term that accurately describes someone exhibiting a racial prejudice (and this is textbook prejudice), that is not “racism”, and I’ll use it. Whatever you end up using, it’s still not good.

                As to the history…. Going through the checklist of times he’s said that Americans weren’t actually Americans because they disagreed with him (and happened to be not-white) and pointing out that the pattern isn’t a pattern because there were circumstances surrounding these acts that adds context that breaks the pattern is…. just so facially absurd. It’s like you think these outbursts are reasonable given the right amount of context. I can’t think of the context that makes telling Americans to “Go back to The Countries they Came from” reasonable. I can say with absolute certainty, that I have never heard the words “Go back to wherever you came from” without thinking the person saying them was a racist. I have no conception on what framework you have to be using to think that’s not racist. It’s so… jarring.

                I mean, really… Ted Cruz. I’m old enough to remember some very snide comments in response to Democrats saying that the 2016 Republican Convention having 17 candidates was a “clown car”. People here seemed very proud that Republicans fielded the most diverse group in the history of America: A black man (Carson), an Indian (Jindal), two, count ’em two Hispanics: (Cruz and Rubio), a woman (Fiorina), and a strange scarecrow that yelled hoarsely a lot (Paul). This diversity, in the face of the two oldest and whitest Democrats to ever walk the face of the planet. It seems like… And you know, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me, awfully convenient for the commentariat, including, if I’m not mistaken, our Blogger in Chief, to check that Hispanic box when discussing diversity within the Republican Party, but the moment it’s used as an example of Trump’s racial…. Something. Then Ted Cruz is white! can you possibly get any more desperate?

                • Because it’s not an expression of racial prejudice or hatred, and you have no basis to claim that it is, other than your anecdotal experience of other people who’ve said, “Go back to wherever you came from.” I mean, really: you cannot demonstrate that Trump made his remarks because these congresswomen aren’t white and he doesn’t like people who aren’t white. Why do you think I bring up the expansive definition of “racism” required for your conclusion? It’s like some
                  East Asians in the US who complain about well-meaning but clueless white Americans who ask where they’re “really” from—it’s not an expression of racial prejudice or hatred, but it gets called “racism” nonetheless. (Trump was accused of exactly this type of “racism” when a Korean-American was questioning Trump’s statements about South Korea taking advantage of the US, and Trump asked, “Are you from South Korea?”) If that’s “racism,” then of course, by that definition, Trump’s remarks are “racist,” but that definition makes “racism” a much less serious problem than the hulking evil we’re supposed to believe it is.

                  As for Cruz, he’s white and Hispanic. Hispanic isn’t a racial category, although it’s often used as shorthand for mixed-race people from Latin America. Spaniards are white and Hispanic, as are many Latin Americans who don’t have non-European ancestry. It was ironic that the Republicans had a more diverse field of candidates than the Democrats, by the Democrats’ own type of demographic slice-and-dice analysis, that’s all. Cruz was never non-white.

            • Hillary Clinton spearheaded the birther issue if you mean orginated

              Trump used (questioned) the issue of eligibility of two candidates (Obama 2008 and Cruz 2016)
              pushing it forward but that is not what I would call spearheading.

              • This is historical revisionism. Yes, Hillary Clinton’s campaign broached the issues in that primary, but that was long settled before Trump picked it up and ran with it again. Time after time, he stood behind a podium and spouted off the talking point, or threw the comment out in an interview, literally no one else wanted to touch it with a 10 foot pole, probably because it was seen as racist. Jack called it a conspiracy theory. These things aren’t mutually exclusive. No other candidate in the history of America had their nation of birth questioned past the filings they have to make with the election commissions, and it just so happens that the first one that does was black. No one who lived through that point and time and remembers it with anything approaching clarity would describe it the way you have. Not even Trump. Because the moment Obama released his birth certificate Trump took credit for it.

                • This is also revisionism, HT. Obama was black—he also had a unique back story, especially since the dawn of the 20th Century. His father was never a citizen. He had a sibling who lived in Africa. He spent much of his childhood in a foreign country. Given the reach of dirty politics, it was inevitable that some would exploit these factors to mark him as “the other” and untrustworthy, especially with the conflicted national attitude toward Muslims, a religion which had never before been relevant to Presidential politics. I confess, I have become so sick of the reflex accusation of racism against anyone who criticized Obama for anything, especially when the criticism was warranted. I see no reason to accept a “when the criticism is bullshit, it’s racist, but when it’s legitimate, it isn’t” standard. Moreover, I know people—smart, reasonable people whom I have known for decdess, and who are, I assure you, NOT racist in any way—who STILL question Obama’s place of birth. I don’t get it.

                  I always thought Trump was trolling Obama in the birther matter, like he trolls everyone. I don’t think he had thought much about whether the accusation was true: he just wanted publicity for himself, and got it. If Trump were Trump in 1960, would he have suggested that JFK would be beholden to the Pope as a Catholic President? Oh, sure he would. And JFK wasn’t black.

    • I have a suggestion, and it is to examine, in depth, Charles Blow’s piece from today in the NYTs. He spells out, in very clear terms, just what he and they are up to.

      [In case you do not sub to the Times]:

      Donald Trump keeps trying to convince any disbelieving holdouts that he is a raging racist. At least, that’s how I imagine his motives. In truth, it is more likely that his truest nature is simply being revealed, again and again, and he is using his own racism to appeal to the racism in the people who support him.

      On Sunday morning, the same day that the Trump administration earlier announced it would conduct raids to round up undocumented immigrants, Trump weighed in again on the conflict between four female freshmen congresswomen and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, tweeting a series of three of the most racist tweets he could produce:

      So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly …

      … and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how. …

      … it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!

      Those progressive congresswomen are Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ayanna S. Pressley of Massachusetts.

      First, the facts: The country Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib and Pressley “originally came from” is this one. They were born in America. Omar was a refugee from Somalia.

      But, this is the most important fact: They aren’t white, and they are women. They are “other” in the framing of the white nationalists. They are descendants of Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.

      The central framing of this kind of thinking is that this is a white country, founded and built by white men, and destined to be maintained as a white country. For anyone to be accepted as truly American they must assimilate and acquiesce to that narrative, to bow to that heritage and bend to those customs.

      It sees a country from which black and brown people come as deficient — “a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world” — because, at its base, it sees black and brown people as deficient.

      It is a form of white identitarianism, which opposes multiculturalism, but refuses to deem that opposition racist.

      And so, it chafes when these black and brown women from exotic-sounding places with exotic-sounding names would dare to challenge the white patriarchy in this country. Why do they not know their place? Why do they not genuflect to the gentry? Why do they not recognize — and honor — the white man’s superiority?

      Start here: because the entire white supremacist ideology and ethos is a lie. America expanded much of its territory through the shedding of blood and breaking of treaties with Native Americans. It established much of its wealth through 250 years of exploiting black bodies for free labor.

      And, for the entire history of this country, some degree of anti-blackness has existed. Now, there is an intensifying anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant xenophobia.

      America was born with a congenital illness and it has been in need of active rehabilitation ever since, although it has often rejected the curative treatments and regressed.

      Challenging America to own its sins and live up to its ideals isn’t a vicious attack, it’s an act of patriotism. As James Baldwin once put it, “I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.”

      And, who better to lead the charge than four women who represent the future face of America.

      But, Trump — and many of his supporters and defenders — spew their racism and tell themselves that it is perfectly acceptable when it is read back to them, in much the same way that a dog will eat its own vomit.

      This is the second time Trump has weighed in on the dispute between Pelosi and the congresswomen. Friday he seemed to be coming to Pelosi’s defense, telling reporters: “She is not a racist. O.K.? She is not a racist. For them to call her a racist is a disgrace.”

      But, he wasn’t really standing by Pelosi but hiding behind her. It was his way of saying that people who are not racist can be falsely assumed to be, like him. He established a parallel in Pelosi, two victims in kind.

      But, there is no parallel. There can be no more discussion or debate about whether or not Trump is a racist. He is. There can be no more rhetorical juggling about not knowing what’s in his heart. We see what flows out of it.

      White people and whiteness are the center of the Trump presidency. His primary concern is to defend, protect and promote it. All that threatens it must be attacked and assaulted. Trump is bringing the force of the American presidency to the rescue of white supremacy. And, self-identified Republicans absolutely love him for it.

      We are watching a very dark chapter in this nation’s history unfold in real time. We are watching as a president returns naked racism to the White House. And we are watching as fellow citizens — possibly a third of them — reveal to us their open animus for us through their continued support of him.

      Once you understand what The Program is, you can then make decisions about whether you will cooperate in that project, or resist it.

      What fascinates me is what an enormous — indeed a world-scale, a universal — learning project this all is. The whole (literate) world is paying attention to this. And it is happening right in the very center of America, arguably the world’s most dynamic country. It is a huge bizarre almost unreal tele-novela and spat that just won’t end, but underneath it all are the most important ideas that have been uncovered through our own Occidental processes! Amazing . . .

      It is really a great deal of fun to have so much to think about, and so many opportunities for research and investigation, offered to us every single day. 2020 is going to be fabulously interesting!

    • To assume that a person of color is foreign-born smells of racism.

      Well, first of all, the tweet appeared directed at Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, who is well-known to be foreign-born.

      The problem is we don’t know who he’s talking about and we’re left to make inferences.

      The problem is, Trump was imprecise as he almost always is, and his enemies want to infer the worst.

      If he’s talking about AOC, or Rashida Tlaib, or Ayanna Pressley, then I think it would be fair to say his remarks smell of racism.

      So telling them to go back to the country of their birth, i.e. the USA, is racist? How interesting. Seems racism comes with some pretty vague requirements these days.

      Now, he never says he’s referring to them – but he used the plural “Congresswomen”. Who else could he mean?

      You’re talking about he same man who typed the word “covfefe” for public comment. If you can’t deal with his talent for typographical, grammatical and cognitive malfunction, reading his tweets must be a terrifying prospect.

      My conclusion: if his remarks don’t at least smell of racism, it would only be because he fails to make enough earthly sense to express a coherent thought.

      There are literally hundreds of examples where he’s failed to express a coherent thought. None of them make him racist, or “…smell of racism…” including this one. That is, unless you’ve already made up your mind he is a racist. Then, I’d say it would be a foregone conclusion, because the media have been telling us for years that everything out of his mouth smells of racism.

      That can’t be wrong, can it?

      • Oh for Christ’s sake Glenn, listen to yourself!

        “Well, first of all, the tweet appeared directed at Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, who is well-known to be foreign-born.”

        Literally no one who isn’t half dead from Koolaide poisoning will say this. Some people are willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, I have no idea why, and assume that he is talking uniqueliy about Omar (even though he referred to congresswomen, plural), because that’s literally the only way that he doesn’t appear to be telling brown Americans to “go back to their country” (more on that in a second), but pretending that this was “directed” at anyone is head-cannon.

        “The problem is, Trump was imprecise as he almost always is, and his enemies want to infer the worst.”

        Or the obvious. I mean, COME. ON.

        “So telling them to go back to the country of their birth, i.e. the USA, is racist? How interesting. Seems racism comes with some pretty vague requirements these days.”

        His words were, “Go back to their countries (again plural, what a coinkydink), fix them, Come back and show us how it’s done. Why would anyone assume Trump was talking about Americans? You know what I think? I think he’s an idiot. I think the same guy that played on Obama being a Kenyan for four years is now playing on brown congresspeople he doesn’t like as something other than America, because the alternative is that someone thinks he meant to go back to America, Fix America, and then Come back to America, and show Americans how it was done, and frankly, I don’t think *anyone* is that dumb.

        “That can’t be wrong, can it?”

        Hell yes it can.

        • Question, HT: Do you think if the US hating cadre of socialist, anti-Israel Democrats included on or more Irish-Merican, whiter than white bread members Trump wouldn’t have tweeted this crap? I sure don’t. The tweets were stupid because, among other things, they walk right into your interpretation, but the colors of these woman are incidental. Rosy O’Donnell..remember her? Megyn Kelly? Paul Ryan?

          • I think you’re being naive.

            He called Rosy O’Donnel a dog, he inferred Megyn Kelly was on her rag, I’m not entirely sure what he said about Paul Ryan, but I’ll bet a million dollars he didn’t tell him to go back to Germany. It’s only when the people he’s firing back at are brown that he seems to take issue with their nation of Origin.

            I can’t prove a negative, but you could prove a positive: Has he ever assumed a white person came from another country? Did he tell Bernie Sanders to go back to Poland?

            Why, on Earth, are you giving him the benefit of your doubt?

            • I consider Ted Cruz white, because he’s whiter than I am. He accused Ted of being ineligible for the Presidency, essentially what he claimed about Obama.

              I have no doubts at all: Trump is an equal opportunity asshole in these situations. He obviously wasn’t telling AOC to go back where she came from, unless one actively wants to believe it. While it’s a simple-minded and lazy argument, the question of how an immigrant from Somalia can be so critical of the United States is not completely without merit. The fact is that one doesn’t need racism as an explanation for these tweets, nor is saying “Go back to where you can from” racist, nor is referring to failed nations like Somalia as inferior racist either.

              Yes, it’s a cheap shot, like “love it or leave it.”

                • There you go again, and I’ll circle back to the same question: if a 100% white rival for the nomination (Let’s say Woody Harrelson) had a father in a circumstance that would support a JFk conspiracy theory (Woody did, as you probably know), do you doubt for a second that Trump would make the same accusation?

                  • Read that again. You really want to hang your hat there? Because the only reason a person being in the same city at the time JFK was shot supports a JFK conspiracy theory is because Rafael Cruz was Cuban.

                    • Consider hat hung. “The Cubans” are a part of the Conspiracy Nut lore, and Trump didn’t put them there. For his rudimentary logic when he wants to insult someone, the fact that Rafael was in Dallas and a Cuban would be enough to fit the slot. Just as the fact that Candidate Woody’s hitman dad was in Dallas would have, to Trump, justified him saying that the elder Harrelson shot Kennedy.

          • I assume you mean this question? In which case, let me be clear:

            If the US hating cadre of socialist, anti-Israel Democrats included one or more Irish-American, whiter than white bread members then I do not believe for a second that Trump would have tweeted this. I have no reason to think otherwise. The closest example you might be able to come across was Ted Cruz, who Trump birthered as a Canadian… But I’ll remind you that Ted’s last name is Cruz.

            • Oh, please! You were talking about race…now, when I give you a white guy that Trump used birther logic against, it’s his name?

              I am 100% certain that you are wrong: his reaction would have been exactly the same, and my support that he has been equally nasty about white critics supports my conclusion. You definitely have reason to “think otherwise.”

              • Refresh my memory, was Trump’s Cruz birther moment before or after Trump insinuated that Rafael Cruz assassinated JFK?

                Your certainty doesn’t dissuade me. Right now I picture you like a guy pointing to the sky and insisting it is green. No matter how much you insist the sky is green, I promise you, it will remain blue.

                • Nope. The “Trump is a racist” trope is entirely manufactured to frame exactly these kinds of incidents, and began with the deliberate misreporting of his “they’re not sending us their best people, folks” speech to characterize his opposing illegal immigration as racist. I’m astonished you’ve fallen for it. But you’re far from the only one, or even the only “smart enough to know better” one. It’s an effective Big Lie.

                • Refresh my memory, was Trump’s Cruz birther moment before or after Trump insinuated that Rafael Cruz assassinated JFK?

                  Why do you think it matters? At the time, I discarded the JFK nonsense as too stupid to even think about, as I assumed most people did.

        • Or the obvious. I mean, COME. ON.

          Well, three things:

          1. I assume Trump is an idiot, but he isn’t a racist idiot. That’s what I believe. You can believe what you want.

          So what is “obvious” about anything he has said? He’s never said anything racist unless you are a member of the loony Left. So why would he do so now? And that’s the subject of all this.

          2. So that leaves me with this chain of logic:

          – Trump often tweets incoherently from the hip, often contradicting himself;

          – It is logical, therefore, that this tweet is another in a long line of such incoherent, self-contradictory tweets;

          – He has never said anything overtly racist before. Therefore, this one was unlikely to be intended as a racial insult;

          – He names no names. The only person who’s country fits the description he gave was Ilhan Omar. No other congresspersons fit that description. None. Not even Duckworth, because Thailand is not particularly corrupt and dysfunctional, unlike Somalia. Definitely not Hirono, coming from Japan.

          – So based on the facts of his tweet, other than the plural he used, why am I to conclude he did other than make a typical Trump stream-of-consciousness garbage when referring to Omar, since she is the only one fitting his description? Or am I to conclude he was talking about AOC Talib, and others despite the fact that he never mentioned any of them either by direct or indirect reference, and that none of them match his description of who he was talking about? To me, that’s easy.

          3. Finally, Trump always tweets to outrage the left. I have little doubt he was attempting to do that here, and nothing more.

          • Do… you actually believe this? I mean… This is a come to Jesus moment here, this will color how I look at you for future interactions:

            Do you actually, seriously believe that Trump has never said anything racist?

            • And one more thing… I don’t give a peewadlin’ damn about your opinion of me. I don’t know you from a load of coal, and I am extremely intolerant of people warning me they will think less of me if I don’t come around to their way of thinking on a difference of opinion.

              Just wanted to get that straight.

              • Oh don’t be dense, I don’t need you to agree with me, I was hoping you’d exhibit basic human intelligence. I mean, let’s be real; You typed this:

                “He has never said anything overtly racist before. Therefore, this one was unlikely to be intended as a racial insult”

                And after scraping my jaw off the floor, I responded with:

                “Do… you actually believe this? I mean… This is a come to Jesus moment here, this will color how I look at you for future interactions: Do you actually, seriously believe that Trump has never said anything racist?”

                Now you can him and haw and defend you honor all you want, you can say that you don’t care what I think…. But you also answered:

                “I can’t recall one thing he said that was racist.”

                Which is one HELL of a backpedal from your original statement, with the added benefit of not actually answering my question. You KNOW better than your original comment.

                • Okay, let’s just get to the point — the object of debate, apparently is whether Trump has said anything racist.

                  So then, correct me. Please. If you can show me genuine racism, I’ll own it, no problem. That won’t change my reasoning much, because to me, his tweets were clearly not intended as racism. I can see how someone who’s convinced of his racism would believe otherwise, though.

                  So where has Trump said racist things? I can’t recall anything he said that was demonstrably racist. I remember many things he said that the left has insisted was racist, but in every case I remember, that requires a bias toward that conclusion.

                  And I didn’t backpedal at all. How do you reach that conclusion? My original statement was:

                  He has never said anything overtly racist before. Therefore, this one was unlikely to be intended as a racial insult;

                  And my second quote was:

                  I can’t recall one thing he said that was racist.

                  I’m trying to find the daylight between the two, and there isn’t much. One is slightly more definitive, but they are essentially the same thing. If I can’t recall him saying anything racist, how is it possible for me to conclude that this current statement is somehow different?

      • The problem is, Trump was imprecise as he almost always is, and his enemies want to infer the worst.

        We should strive to give ambitious statements the most charitable reading possible, to avoid imputing malice where none exists. That being said, our analysis does not end once we’ve found an interpretation that turns aside the accusation of racism; there are other uncharitable things that must be accounted for.

        So telling them to go back to the country of their birth, i.e. the USA, is racist?

        You offer an alternative interpretation I had not considered: that Trump was referring to AOC and other US-born Congresswomen, but never meant to imply the USA was not the country of their birth. That certainly disposes of any problem with assuming a foreign origin for non-whites.

        Of course, it also would mean that Trump called on them to leave the USA to go back to the USA, to return to the USA when they’d learned something. Such a construction wouldn’t be out of place in Alice In Wonderland. It’s underpants-on-head psychotic*.

        To make matters worse, it would imply Trump considers the US to be a “totally broken and crime infested” place whose government (a branch of which is his to lead) is “a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world”. Yet at the same time it’s also “the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth”. Maybe he thinks crime, corruption, and ineptitude are great.

        So, once again we’re left to choose between an interpretation that seems racist and one that seems psychotic. Which is the most charitable?

        *You may take me to task for stigmatizing mental illness. However, if this level of psychosis is now acceptable in the President of the United States, then I humbly submit it has not been stigmatized enough.

        • So, once again we’re left to choose between an interpretation that seems racist and one that seems psychotic. Which is the most charitable?

          No, that’s simply the way those who have already concluded he is racist would look at it.

          He named no names, named no nicknames, named no quantity other than plural. The only person meeting his description was Omar, Duckworth, and Hirono. Among those three, only one comes from a country that fits his description of a dysfunctional government.

          So under what logic do we include Ocasio-Cortez, Talib, etc? None I can see.

          • We don’t have to conclude he intended to target AOC and the others. But that still leaves him talking about a single person in the plural – not once, but repeatedly over several tweets. That’s not merely a malapropism, it signals something very ‘off’ with the speaker. And I’m not sure that’s really more flattering than being a racist, which was my point.

            • I see your point, but it was a continuous thought, not several comments removed by 15 minutes or so. So starting that thought in the plural ought to carry through, I would think. When I make similar mistakes, that’s what happens.

        • “We should strive to give ambitious statements the most charitable reading possible, to avoid imputing malice where none exists.”

          That’s was an honorable step in the right direction and then you went over a cliff and ended up in the abyss.

          “So, once again we’re left to choose between an interpretation that seems racist and one that seems psychotic. Which is the most charitable?”

          Seriously DaveL,
          So now we’re to believe that there’s only two choices, racist or psychotic? Are you a professional psychotherapist? Here’s a fact for you Dave; Trump has shown a very clear pattern of trolling Democrats with unflattering inarticulate reactionary tweets since well before he was elected. What about the choice that reflects Trump’s pattern that “there is really no telling what Trump is trying to say without making all kinds of assumptions because Trump can’t express a coherent thought” when he’s trolling Democrats on Twitter.

          It really does seem to me that you’re disregarding President Trump’s verifiable pattern of these kind of tweets and jumping on the tunnel visioned band-wagon assuming malice.

          Way, way off topic: Since you seem to ignore verifiable patterns; I’m curious what you think of the argument that the apocalyptic climate change predictions ignore verifiable climate changing patterns. That doesn’t require an answer, just something for you to reflect on.

    • “perdon my skrewed-up keybord”

      Have you tried a complete shut down, let it sit for at least 30 seconds and then reboot? If that doesn’t work, try plugging in your keyboard into a different USB slot.

      • I ended up getting a new one. Apparently, there’s a limit to how much coffee & other beverages one can spill on a keyboard before it starts dropping letters.

    • Indeed, imagine that quote coming from anyone, if they dared to substitute in “white”, “straight”, “male”, “Christian”, etc.

      Representatives are supposed to represent all their constituents, indeed it’s an ethical duty to promote their interests and agenda ahead of one’s own identity.

      • “Representatives are supposed to represent all their constituents”

        Your innuendo is false.

        They DO represent ALL of their constituents whether those constituents agree with the Representative or not!

        • So you think, for example, if Pressley wants to forget about the interests of most of her constituents in the pursuit of promoting those of black women over all others, she would be violating no ethical duty of her position?

          • “So you think, for example, if Pressley wants to forget about the interests of most of her constituents in the pursuit of promoting those of black women over all others, she would be violating no ethical duty of her position?”

            Reread what I wrote and don’t make assumptions; I did not address the ethical choices.

            Are black women part of her constituency, yes or no? If not then you might have a valid argument that she’s not representing her constituency. These things are for her constituency to deal with on election day.

            • I think you’re the one who needs to go back and read without making assumptions, as you are the one who started in about innuendo.

              • “I think you’re the one who needs to go back and read without making assumptions, as you are the one who started in about innuendo.”

                DaveL,
                What assumption do you think I made that caused me to use the word innuendo in my comment, “your innuendo is false”?

                Here are your words again, “Representatives are supposed to represent all their constituents”.

          • Suppose that is exactly the group she was elected to represent. Seriously, most constituencies leaning as far left as hers have “black women” in the top five of their list of identity politics issues to address.

            Once a congressperson is elected, they have an ethical duty to represent their positions, not those of the voters. Pandering to your constituency is unethical, not voting or supporting the positions you believe in.

        • They’re supposed to actually do things to advance their constituents’ interests, however, not put their own grandstanding first. I would respectfully remind you of Dennis Kucinich, who previously represented a portion of Cleveland until his district was merged with another. He ran for president in 2004 and 2008, even though he had no chance of being nominated, leave alone winning, and wasted time on pointless grandstanding like articles of impeachment against GWB and Cheney. He backed off a bit after he was challenged in the 2008 primaries by Joe Cimperman, who argued that he was spending too much time on grandstanding and not enough on his constituents, but it didn’t really matter, since after 2010 the Democrats lost control of the House and then his district was eliminated. The Squad are pulling the same crap – just interested in grandstanding, not getting things done for their districts.

  8. As deft a political play as it may or may not be, I think it’s…. useful, at the very least to try to understand why they think the way they do, where they have a point, and where they’re just being stupid.

    It doesn’t take much effort, for instance, to find racism, and I mean, the spin on this is epic…. “Immigrants should have a special love for America?” Sure. Maybe. We aren’t talking about a group of immigrants. While it might be convenient to pretend he wasn’t talking about Omar, Tlaib and AOC, he did say “progressive” “congresswomen” and “fight with Pelosi”, I’d love to know who else you might think he was referring to. One might, *MIGHT* be able to squeak away with “He wasn’t talking about Pressley” But I have no idea why at this point you would give Trump the benefit of your doubt.

    It doesn’t really matter though, because of the four, only one (Omar) is an immigrant. So what you have, in effect, is the same guy who for four years kept front and center the birther controversy, telling America that the first black American president was from Kenya, all of a sudden is calling (up to) three born-American minority congresspeople “immigrants” who should (temporarily, of course) “go back to their own countries?”. Is there *really* any doubt in *anyone’s* mind that he would not have said if AOC’s progressive gang was white? Really?

    • HT, all members of the squad play the race card constantly. They present themselves as the other representing the other. For AOC, it’s Puerto Ricans and Dominicans. For Omar, it’s Somalis. For Tlaib, it’s Muslims. I don’t know enough about Pressley. Trump could have left out the “back” and just said “Go to the countries that have spawned your other culture that are a mess and straighten them out and then come back here and tell us how you can now fix all the problems you see here with that successful experience.” It’s actually pretty thoughtful and well-moderated. Of course, it’s reminiscent of Vietnam War era, “Love it or Leave it.” But I think it’s legitimately more nuanced than that.

      And of course, some of these women were not born in the countries they so identify with and use to get elected, but you could’a fooled me.

      • Look, I’m not defending the congresswomen, they’re every bit as racist, ungrateful and toxic as you think they are. But the answer to racist toxic assholes isn’t to be a racist, toxic asshole.

        What I am saying is that Trump has a history of this, and I don’t know how anyone at this point could not see it without being deliberately obtuse. Imagine my shock, for example, that he hasn’t said this kind of thing about, say, Bernie Sanders, who thinks that every country that applies literally an iota more socialism than America a Godsend.

        • I don’t think the tweet is racist or toxic. And, faced with the relentless opposition Trump has faced, maybe being an asshole is sound strategy. He’s not letting his opposition define him. I think people see that.

          • I think that’s generous. Look, there’s every chance that Trump wins in 2020, but if he does it will be because the Democrats deserved to lose, not because Trump deserved to win.

            • I disagree. I’ll vote for him as many times as I can this election. I voted for HRC last time because I thought Trump was too far outside the pale. But he’s accomplished a great deal and gotten the country headed in the right direction. (The business of America is business). And the Dems have moved so far beyond the pale they can’t even see it. They are a threat. I think lots of voters feel the same way. It may even be a landslide a la McGovern.

              • Look, in 2016 I said at the time that I would have voted for Trump and felt good about it, but that wasn’t because Trump deserved to win, it was because Hillary deserved to lose. I could imagine voting for a Democrat a year from now, depending. If the woke left doesn’t eat him alive, Biden could do well. I’d vote for Gabbard and feel good about it, although she’ll never win the primary. If you can’t imagine voting for any Democrat, I think that says more about you than the Democrats.

                • Just as an example, all their candidates want the taxpayers (like moi) to provide free healthcare to anyone who makes it into the country. That’s a problem with me?

                • Gabbard will vanish long before any primary votes are cast. Biden WILL probably get eaten by the woke left, thought it will take longer. Even if he doesn’t, he isn’t who he was as VP, he comes across more as a tired old man than a steady elder statesman at this point, and he could do poorly in the debates. At one point I’d have agreed with your last statement, that voting straight ticket no matter what is the sign of a closed mind, but I just can’t justify voting for any of the 1/3 or so of the current slate who are possible contenders vis-à-vis Trump.

                  I worked with Cory Booker, the man is a narcissist, pure and simple, who once lectured the people in an elevator going floor to floor on a unique astronomical event that was taking place, just to fill dead air with the sound of his own voice. Kamala Harris? Not a chance, the woman is not trustworthy and not up to the task. Elizabeth Warren? Already a proven liar to win an advantage she was not entitled to, and I don’t care for academics as president (Woodrow Wilson, anyone?). Bernie? No dice, the man is an enemy of everything this nation is supposed to be and an active denier of the laws of economics, just under 3 decades after the USSR disappeared from the map. Julian Castro? Uh uh, didn’t like him at HUD, don’t want him as president. Mayor Pete? He’s polling well, but he’s trying to punch three weight classes above his own. Beto? His time has come and gone already. DeBlasio? Never get there, away from the East Coast no one knows him, and frankly he is checking out of his current post two years before it’s time to do so. Klobuchar? Trump would eat her alive. Jay Inslee? He just sank himself with that stupid statement about appointing Megan Rapinoe Secretary of State.

                  The Democratic Party just can’t produce statesmen anymore. However, in a party in which the loudmouthed, the overconfident, the bullies, and the frankly crazy hold sway, it’s not a surprise. Sorry, HT, but the party of FDR, and JFK, leave alone the party of Jefferson and Jackson, is long gone and, like the British Empire, it’s something that this world simply will not see again, for better or for worse. I wish that were not the case. The political left has a place in society and in government: keeping capitalism from running amok, making sure the disabled, the unskilled, and those without resources don’t fall through the cracks, encouraging and backing promising innovation, keeping services adequately funded, trying to make sure everyone gets access to the freedoms we’re all supposed to have, checking military adventurism, keeping an eye on the environment, and so on. Somewhere along the line keeping capitalism from running amok became stifling industry, capitalism, and wealth generation, providing for the disabled, unskilled, and those without resources became keeping those dependent dependent so they would vote one way, backing innovation became pursuing hare-brained ideas that waste money, keeping services adequately funded became encouraging governmental bloat and waste, trying to make freedom equal became dividing us along every line possible and pointing the finger at white straight men as bad, checking military adventurism became encouraging national weakness, and keeping an eye on the environment became smothering everything through overregulation.

                  This isn’t a party that’s going to govern well or accomplish great things. It’s a party that’s going to govern tyrannically and stymie accomplishment. That’s ok for someplace where the culture doesn’t value individual freedom as much (Japan), which has little to offer the world and which the world has little interest in (New Zealand), or where the people, frankly, aren’t ready for freedom (most of the Middle East). It is not suitable for the world’s leading industrialized small-d democracy.

              • Likewise, I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 and I didn’t vote for Hillary either, because I believed neither was worthy of my support, HRC was going to carry NJ anyway, and I would own neither a lout nor a proto-tyrant in the White House. I WILL vote for him in 2020, even though the Democrats could put a cardboard cutout up and still win NJ, because the Democrats have gone completely off the reservation.

            • Look, there’s every chance that Trump wins in 2020, but if he does it will be because the Democrats deserved to lose, not because Trump deserved to win.

              President Trump deserves to win because he is doing a better job than any POTUS in recent memory. He told us what he would do, we voted for him (expecting to be disappointed again, in my case), and then he worked to do what he said. Everything else is secondary to that point: he IS accomplishing what we sent him to DC to do. Progressives have taken years to get to this point in the destruction of America: it might take a little time to reverse that damage.

              Look, at this point most common Americans no longer CARE who calls President Trump racist (or anything else) as the unhinged have run this tactic into the ground. When I am called a racist just for existing with the skin color I have (pink is a color), then all of this folderol can go pound sand: we have a better economy, fewer governmental obstructions and invasions, there are more jobs, and the immigration debate is REALLY being discussed. I could go on, but you get the picture.

              • I don’t like this argument, but it’s at least, honest, I think. You don’t seem to be arguing that this wasn’t racist, I think you’re saying you’re not a single issue voter on the topic of race, so you’ll overlook the racism.

                I can at least respect that, heck, I might even agree with it, I’m just not going to carry water and say that something that is, isn’t, to save dear leader’s precious feelings from being hurt.

                • For the record, I don’t think the tweet is racist, either. Glenn has covered my reasoning already in the thread, just a few minutes ago.

                  I just no longer CARE about being called racist. It is a null word, no content or context. The left has made this so, by being racist and calling things that are not racist.

                  Stipulate that President Trump is an outright racist, for instance, and he fits right in with the Democrats in that regard.

                • HT, you really think it’s possible to hurt Donald Trump’s feelings? Or that anyone here thinks that’s possible?

                  Bottom line: “Racist” has been rendered meaningless by the Left and the race grievance industry, but I repeat myself. It’s now impossible to say anything about a person of color without being labeled a racist. The word no longer carries any weight or has any meaning.

                  • Oh Absolutely. I think Donald Trump is a raw, exposed nerve of feelings. How else do you describe the constant barrage of frankly less than presidential tirades out of his Twitter account?

        • HT writes: Look, I’m not defending the congresswomen, they’re every bit as racist, ungrateful and toxic as you think they are. But the answer to racist toxic assholes isn’t to be a racist, toxic asshole.

          I have read all your posts in this thread.

          On this blog, as it happens, I seem to be the one person who would fit the description of ‘racist’. I do believe that America in its soul, in its origin, was intended for a more-or-less specific people and their progeny: Europeans. Which is also to say, not to become a multi-racial society which, in my understanding, in no sense makes a nation strong. It leads to civil crisis and civil fracturing. How this has come about is complex.

          Therefore interpretation of the present is required. Is the crisis that is now taking shape a crisis because the ‘original demographic’ is putting up a fight, is resisting, when it should simply give in to an inevitable demographic dispossession? That is, is the crisis coming about because of the problem of white people? (This is essentially what the POC activists say).

          Or is it coming about because the policies to create a multi-ethnic society lead to — are leading to — a profound civil crisis? What is the cause of the developing crisis in the present?

          What I notice is that everyone is struggling over definitions. For example you assert that the congresswomen are ‘racist’. But you say this as if this is a problem. But more in the sense that you do not understand that they, as much as anyone, are profoundly concerned with racial categories.

          You must really believe that not to have concerns about the composition of one’s culture and society, and to plan for and take action toward attaining the sort of culture-composition one feels comfortable in, is wrong bad evil: racist. Those congresswomen, and Charles Blow, and hundreds of thousands of decision-making Americans-of-color, and their white allies, are advocates of those policies and outcomes that suit their preferences. And the ideology that motivates them, and the policies they advocate for, are having and will have profound implications. The white demographic has every good reason to be concerned. Would you be able to honestly say that this is not so?

          It just so happens — or in any case I accept this as true — that this does in fact mean the elimination of whiteness as a category. They actually define the definition as the problem. They both recognize and negate the category. And that is the base and underlying story about this particular phase in American history: either the project of white dispossession, the dispossession of the white majority, will go forward as it is to fruition; or there will occur a reversal, a reverse-reaction, and the construction of a countermanding definition.

          But see how distorted and painful is the beginning of a counter-movement. How will it define itself? How could such a reversal, given the romanticism of the Sixties, be even contemplated?

          It is very very true that right now, today, no person of European descent concerned for their ‘progeny’ can come out and state the terms of their own interest. They have no defense. No platform. No justification. This makes sense because racialism has been made into an unspeakable crime, and is self-suppressed.

          But the alternative, you see, is a genuinely immoral and profoundly unethical and disastrous one, just as the European activists say. It is the fulfillment of the trend of dispossession.

          The ‘you are a racist!’ argument, the endless recriminations, the endless dismissals, the denials: all of this misses the point. One has to define a position inside of oneself, and really believe in it, that it is good and proper for a people to maintain its identity in the face of demographic inundation — with all its really difficult ethical problems! — and one has to build a base upon which one’s own creations and one’s ‘progeny’ in all senses, can be, will be, preserved.

          I suggest that this is what is developing in our present . . . and what is profoundly resisted.

            • Well, at the very least — this must be worth something, perhaps a dirty Canadian penny? — I actually read carefully and I understand your argument. Those that you have been arguing against, don’t. They can only see things in binary terms, and what speaks in them is basically (though I cannot be completely certain) a raw, even inarticulate, patriotism. Michael West’s views seemed to have been formed through his military experience. Glen’s as well. I think these result in rather *fixed* patriotic ideals.

              What is strange is to notice the *in-fighting* among those Democrats. But then to notice — for example here — the in-fighting among the more conservative sorts. For example, you are trying to accurately call out the racism that you genuinely notice in Trumps terms of discourse. They simply won’t admit to it!

              It is possible that Trump, the man, is not a racist. It is not possible that the crisis facing this entity called ‘America’ does not have a great deal to do with race (and a whole host of other categories and to the metaphysical question of hierarchy). Yet your interlocutors won’t admit to the full, complex picture.

              I ask why. I think it is because within their own selves they genuinely wish that racialist categories, and racialist imperatives, did not exist. They gave their heart and soul to that hope as the New America of the Postwar was defined. They bent . . . and then bent even more.

              You used the term ‘naive’ earlier. I see their position as idealistic on one hand, and blindly naive on the other. They will lose everything. What is being lost is showing itself in not uncertain terms. They simply cannot actually *see* what is going on. What this seems to mean is that they cannot be counted on to provide an accurate assessment about *reality*.

              And that is the core problem with American Conservatism.

            • Please make sure I also have a Golden Orb!

              There is a difference between racialism and racism, I hope you will grasp the difference.

              It is true — I brought this out early on — that I am influenced by the ideas of ‘race realism’. But that, of itself, would not mean that I am a ‘racist’. You could also find, if you did more reading on the topic, that many people who think is racialist terms, are not filled with negative animus.

              For example my Catholic-oriented value-system induces me to be concerned for the well-being of people who are struggling out of poverty and all the disadvantages (mental, economic, physical, racial and also spiritual) of people in my surroundings (in Colombia where I now live). My endeavor is to come to understand how people can realistically be of service to each other . . . without exploitation. (Ooops, sorry, that is not meant to imply I am a communist!)

              Racialism is a way of trying to organize in more realistic terms an operative interpretation of the world. You may not see it, perhaps you will never see it, but ‘hyper-liberalism’ is infused to a certain degree with ‘false idealism’.

              If you understand my position — not agree with it but understand it — you may find yourself in a better position to understand the conflicts of our present. That is what I said when I *introduced* myself here oh those years back now.

              (And if 5 years passed like that, is this how one’s whole life passes? I got my first taste of quickly passing time here. . . sort of depressing).

            • If you are going to suggest others are racist I can only assume you were speaking only for yourself as did Aliza.

              • FYI: My more important criteria are not racial criteria. ‘Race’ to me is just one aspect of a larger question.

                Therefore I prefer ‘racialist’ to ‘racist’.

                I also referred to how others would likely define me. And that is what really counts: not what I tell you of me but what you interpret of what I tell you, and what label you apply. (That ‘you’ really means us/them).

        • From a Times article today: “Where Segregation Persists, Trouble Persists”

          “There is a large body of evidence that shows that African-American children perform better when they move out of high-poverty areas into more middle class, less segregated neighborhoods. Academic achievement improves, college completion rates go up, arrests go down, unwed parenthood declines and employment rates go up, with better pay.”

          The ideological attack, which is also an appeal to emotion and sentiment, is directed against any person who resists the social-engineering project defined through progressive Americanism.

          The problem, seen from that perspective, is obviously white culture, white identity. Therefore, it is this that must be removed, defeated, isolated, vilified.

          And argument, any activism, any discourse, that does not toe the party line places itself, ipso facto, beyond the pale of proper human sentiment. The closest counter-argument that is allowed to enter the fray is that for example of Patrick Buchanan. But even that is described as morally reprehensible.

          Interestingly, the core assumption of these progressive ideologues, and the core assumption in the above-quoted paragraph, rests on the notion of a continuing social engineering for the African-American. The assumption, which does not materialize as it is desired, is that these kids will become like the whites of the dominant culture. And that has been the project of Americanism: to mold this people into the design established as necessary for the transformation of that race. But the fact of the matter is that they simply do not wish to conform to this established model. That is, to become like good little white children. There is something — and quite naturally so — thoroughly rebellious in the African-American soul. Why would they desire to become what they had not ever themselves intended to become in order to be seen as ‘good’ by the surrounding dominant culture?

          So, as it seems to happen, at least this is something I notice, as the years proceed the ‘resistance’ to the constrains of white culture show themselves more. What makes them uncomfortable — for example the monuments of white culture surrounding them — become aggravating to them: a reminder of a process of negative events which brought them ‘from the shores of Africa’ into the hellish bowels of Amerikkka. Remember what happened and is happening in South African today. This is not to say that the cultural situations are commensurate, but that similar outcomes will manifest as the demographic wave gain force. These things are inevitable.

          If the past is an indicator it is ‘the System’ itself that will work as hard as it can to defeat ‘white identitarianism’, in accord with the intention expressed by the progressive writer in the Times opinion piece. This is, beyond doubt, what Americanism entails. It is built on those pillars (in its Postwar manifestation).

          While I recognize how Donald Trump is playing his hand — to win the coming election — one has to face him and all the dramatic propaganda-noise that comes out of him with a great deal of suspicion. He seems to act, or to fulfill a role, of ‘white advocacy’, and his actions are forcefully interpreted in this way by the New American activists, but what is ultimately portended? It would take a more radical figure, and a more radical social resistance movement, to ‘turn back the tide’.

          It seems it is an illusion though — a comforting one I admit — that at any point things will *return to normal*. Whatever is today the resistance among the ‘Republicans’ (that is, the vestiges of the dominant majority that once was) will fade as the rising demographic gains more democratic-based power. But if ‘demography is destiny’, and it appears to be true, what is happening now will continue.

          These things are talked about in *my* circles. That America may be *lost* but that we need to turn our attention to Europe.

          Oh it won’t be so bad!

  9. I will say, this entire tweet controversy has certainly struck a chord.

    Hey, Barack Obama! We’re having a conversation about race, baby! Can you dig it? We’re having a teaching moment! And you’re not the lecturer. Cool!

  10. After all the cries of racism, e.g., Covington Boys, Oberlin College, MAGA hats, Gadsen flag, Betty Ross flag, etc., at this point, people will not care if David Duke runs for President and rants about black people in every campaign speech.

  11. Humble, I just wanted to note that I appreciate you analyzing these words and actions for what they are. You and I always will disagree on politics, but you’re not willing to give a pass to those in your party who behave badly. Thank you.

  12. In 1810 the Democratic party (although at the time it was known as the Democratic-Republican Party) elected a crop of young men to Congress. Two, Kentucky’s Henry Clay (the youngest Speaker of the House ever, known as the Great Compromiser) and South Carolina’s John C. Calhoun (early advocate of states’ rights, minority rights, and slavery’s staunchest defender), became major players in American national politics for decades. Others, like Felix Grundy of Tennessee, William Bibb of Georgia, and a half-dozen others, did not achieve quite that stature, but they went on to become attorneys general, governors, and a Vice President or two. Because they came from expansionist states who pushed them to advocate for the War of 1812, they were called the “War Hawks.”

    Now we have the “Squad,” consisting of four young congresswomen in their first terms, pushing a “Green New Deal” I’m not sure any of them understand completely, foaming at the mouth to impeach the president, but without an articulable legitimate basis to do so, and hiding from criticism behind their gender, their color, and in one case her religion and a piece of cloth (half of me wants to call Omar Congresswoman Pull-Start, since she made the hijab an issue). I don’t know whether to laugh or shudder at the idea of them getting into higher office.

  13. What he said is true. Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Ayanna Pressley all have little love for this country as it. They want to change it and not in a small way. Entirely. And they regularly display racism (anti-white), sexism (anti-male), and anti-semitism.

    When have they displayed anti-white racism?

  14. Once upon a time a Republican President tweeted some stupid shit to inflame the political left, he got stupid emotional reactions from the political left in return. Then end.

    The moral of the story is…

    Tweet unto others as you would have them tweet unto you.

    The political left doesn’t disappoint.

    • See, I think people don’t give Trump the credit he deserves as a tactician. He knows people hate him and everything he says and does. So, he manipulates people into sidling up with really horribly irreconciable positions such as defending what Soccer Star and soon to be Secretary of State Rapinoe said in France.

      He may not be steeped in policy, or history, and may not have deeply held convictions, but what he does do, because he understands it at a gut level, is he knows how to gauge public sentiment. He knows that people don’t really care that CNN declares on a nightly basis, “Trump’s a racist so let’s see what racist things he’s done today. Oh, look! He told members of Congress to go back home and, by golly, they are people of color!”

      He knows that Tlaib, Ocasio-Cortez, Omar and the new one are going to react to whatever he says with abject viciousness and stupidity. So, he makes these seemingly obtuse, uneducated tweets telling them they can go back home, then he sits back and watches the fireworks. He single handedly forced Rep. Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats in the House to condemn him as a racist. Well, what happened? They got their resolution but the House struck Pelosi’s comments from the record, and the Democrats circled the wagons around The Squad! And, the result: he pushed the Democrats to the hard-left defending their Democrat colleagues for their obnoxious and uninformed comments, embracing what many in “middle America” consider to be unamerican and unpatriotic. He out-maneuvered them and now they are united in embracing what is really anti-American positions.

      Rep. Pelosi has to be furious that the Democrats got played. They served him what supposed to be an ace but he slammed it back at them, leaving them scrambling, trying to figure which way is up. Oops. I did notice that the Squad had a press conference today condemning him but they were not flanked by their usual cadre of supporters, who were probably too busy rearranging their sock drawers to attend. Take that, Squad! What should have been a culture war win for the Squad blew up in their arrogant, self-righteous faces. Well done, ladies. Well done, indeed. Keep this up and guaranty four more years of Trump.

      jvb

      • He may not be steeped in policy, or history, and may not have deeply held convictions, but what he does do, because he understands it at a gut level, is he knows how to gauge public sentiment.

        Reminded me of a song*…

        “Don’t know much about history
        Don’t know much biology
        Don’t know much about a science book
        Don’t know much about the French I took,

        But I do know how Americans do,
        And I know that if they love me too,
        Progressives will in their pants go wee wee”

        *With all due apologies to Sam Cooke

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.