Old Trapper
Verified User
Would that not be sexism, not racism?
The Polarizing Corrosively Hurtful Hate-Filled We/They Approach To Political Debate.
- Thread starter PoliTalker
- Start date
Would that not be sexism, not racism?
Robo
Verified User
I don't hate anybody, I simply pity those who ignore our history, the genius of our founders And our Constitution. The great experiment given to us by our founders and the documentation they gave us as our road map solves all serious problems and leaves the petty problems to the people to solve for themselves. Read and understand as best you can your Constitution and determine to live by its mandates for good government, and demand that your representatives honor their oath of office and therewith defend, preserve and respect it and govern only according to it and there'd be no right or left modern liberal or conservative there'd only be true liberal conservative Bill Of Rights constitutionalist arguing only about the true and actual interpretations of that genius document instead of stupidity like how many lies a President tells, or who added more to the debt. All of that garbage is perfectly and honestly laid at the feet of both of the duopoly parties.
It happened over and over. you are, of course, lying again. Your threads always have a goal,. They are not seeking debate at all. You are asking for Dems to provide evidence,so you can simply deny it. There is never a scintilla of evidence allowed . That is your plan. You are pandering to the right and have no interest in an honest debate. That is your job after all.
Lefties will ALWAYS have some excuse for not being able to copy n paste the evidence onto the thread. It has NEVER happened, lefties insist that they already have, but they cannot EVER copy n paste whatever evidence they claim to have already posted.
That is correct. The reason why you hear the word "race" when you say "racism". Racism is about race.
You are starting to get it.
Old Trapper
Verified User
And you are doing what you do best, avoiding answering the question.
BTW, under your limited definition of "race" one can never be a racist. Fortunately intelligent people understand what constitutes "race".
rac·ism
Dictionary result for racism
/ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun
noun: racism
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
Not the entire race, just one of that race.
Can you understand that?
By trying an end run on the Constitution, Article I, Trump has violated his oath of office.
^Folks, you just can't fix this kind of stupid.
Provide actual evidence that Trump is a racist, and I will answer any question you want.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Robo,
Well I'm glad to hear you don't hate anybody, but doesn't supporting President Trump also enable hatred by association?
It is a mistake to take people who simply interpret the Constitution differently, and CLAIM they 'ignore it.' THEY don't claim to ignore it. Who are you to put words into their mouths? If you want to argue interpretation, that's one thing, but you have to allow other people to have their own interpretations.
Does it say in the Constitution that people should be free to exploit others?
NO!
One person's freedom needs to end where it begins to impose upon another person's life.
Extreme wealth inequality is no petty problem. Some people, simply by waking up in the morning, exploit others if they do nothing at all. If they do nothing to dismantle the wealth extraction machinery they benefit from. A vast intricate machine, frequently involving great inherited wealth and inherited methods of attaining great wealth, but always concocted so that the benefactors do very little physical labor, yet they benefit greatly from the physical labor of others who remain poor. My how modern we have become - NOT.
I refuse to believe that wealth extraction machinery is the sole purpose of this nation. That's not freedom. That's oppression.
(Your interpretations, not those of others...)
Yeah, I tend to place the responsibility for that with the powerful. And let's not kid around. We know whomever has the most money has the most power. It's nothing to spend millions influencing our politics if you're a billionaire or even a tenth of one. It's a no-brainer to spend millions to get billions. The only thing to hold an individual like that back is morals. Lacking such self-restraint, big money gets used to throw gasoline on the ever smoldering fire between conservatives and liberals. The way I see it, conservatives are far more susceptible to propaganda. If conservatives don't like the solution to a problem, they simply refuse to acknowledge it even exists. Rich conservatives throw big money at propaganda driven PR designed to elicit dog-whistle emotional responses among the lower echelon. (And they lap it right up like it was wine.)
Public education struggling, strapped for cash? 'Oh, that's not the problem. You can't solve anything by throwing cash at it.' (except crime, by building a wall, they later claim)
Industrial age causing climate change? 'It's all a hoax. We don't have to spend any money to fix a hoax.'
All kinds of implications about a nefarious President colluding with the Russians? 'Witch hunt. The guy is as pure as the driven snow. And his hair doesn't look stupid, either.'
Diplomacy, hard work and compromise, through a very long and multi-lateral process actually produce a treaty to prevent Iranian nuclear weapons? 'Fake news. Throw it out. Start the sabre-rattling again.'
How to make NATO so silent you could hear a pin drop: Let Pence voice the American position. 'Fake news again. never happened.'
It just goes on and on.
I'm all for respect and hard work to derive policy from basic differences, but refusal to even admit that the main stream news is real prevents that. And that's done on purpose. Powerful hard line conservatives want to poison any process which might lead to them giving up on ANYTHING. And if liberals try to calmly point this out? Who goes nasty to shut down any such discussions... If it's a CNN reporter questioning the PRESIDENT about something he refuses to admit, THE PRESIDENT attacks the reporter. What kind of leader is THAT? What. You don't have to discuss any issue you don't like, just cough up a few insults, change the subject you don't like? WE CALL B S !!!
What did people expect to happen after they elect a hater? Universal love? No. You're going to get hateful policy.
And who uses hatred as a tool? Can we say it? Demagogues? I think so-oh. Uh hunh.
And we are inflicted with one.
The first thing we need to do to make America greater is to get rid of President Trump. Then we need to have a government that does things that make the people happy, so we don't have so much hatred. Making just the rich happy ain't gettin it. SPLC says hate groups are at an all time high.
Oh, don't bother to say it. We know. 'Fake news.'
Well I'm glad to hear you don't hate anybody, but doesn't supporting President Trump also enable hatred by association?
It is a mistake to take people who simply interpret the Constitution differently, and CLAIM they 'ignore it.' THEY don't claim to ignore it. Who are you to put words into their mouths? If you want to argue interpretation, that's one thing, but you have to allow other people to have their own interpretations.
Does it say in the Constitution that people should be free to exploit others?
NO!
One person's freedom needs to end where it begins to impose upon another person's life.
Extreme wealth inequality is no petty problem. Some people, simply by waking up in the morning, exploit others if they do nothing at all. If they do nothing to dismantle the wealth extraction machinery they benefit from. A vast intricate machine, frequently involving great inherited wealth and inherited methods of attaining great wealth, but always concocted so that the benefactors do very little physical labor, yet they benefit greatly from the physical labor of others who remain poor. My how modern we have become - NOT.
I refuse to believe that wealth extraction machinery is the sole purpose of this nation. That's not freedom. That's oppression.
(Your interpretations, not those of others...)
Yeah, I tend to place the responsibility for that with the powerful. And let's not kid around. We know whomever has the most money has the most power. It's nothing to spend millions influencing our politics if you're a billionaire or even a tenth of one. It's a no-brainer to spend millions to get billions. The only thing to hold an individual like that back is morals. Lacking such self-restraint, big money gets used to throw gasoline on the ever smoldering fire between conservatives and liberals. The way I see it, conservatives are far more susceptible to propaganda. If conservatives don't like the solution to a problem, they simply refuse to acknowledge it even exists. Rich conservatives throw big money at propaganda driven PR designed to elicit dog-whistle emotional responses among the lower echelon. (And they lap it right up like it was wine.)
Public education struggling, strapped for cash? 'Oh, that's not the problem. You can't solve anything by throwing cash at it.' (except crime, by building a wall, they later claim)
Industrial age causing climate change? 'It's all a hoax. We don't have to spend any money to fix a hoax.'
All kinds of implications about a nefarious President colluding with the Russians? 'Witch hunt. The guy is as pure as the driven snow. And his hair doesn't look stupid, either.'
Diplomacy, hard work and compromise, through a very long and multi-lateral process actually produce a treaty to prevent Iranian nuclear weapons? 'Fake news. Throw it out. Start the sabre-rattling again.'
How to make NATO so silent you could hear a pin drop: Let Pence voice the American position. 'Fake news again. never happened.'
It just goes on and on.
I'm all for respect and hard work to derive policy from basic differences, but refusal to even admit that the main stream news is real prevents that. And that's done on purpose. Powerful hard line conservatives want to poison any process which might lead to them giving up on ANYTHING. And if liberals try to calmly point this out? Who goes nasty to shut down any such discussions... If it's a CNN reporter questioning the PRESIDENT about something he refuses to admit, THE PRESIDENT attacks the reporter. What kind of leader is THAT? What. You don't have to discuss any issue you don't like, just cough up a few insults, change the subject you don't like? WE CALL B S !!!
What did people expect to happen after they elect a hater? Universal love? No. You're going to get hateful policy.
And who uses hatred as a tool? Can we say it? Demagogues? I think so-oh. Uh hunh.
And we are inflicted with one.
The first thing we need to do to make America greater is to get rid of President Trump. Then we need to have a government that does things that make the people happy, so we don't have so much hatred. Making just the rich happy ain't gettin it. SPLC says hate groups are at an all time high.
Oh, don't bother to say it. We know. 'Fake news.'
Don't worry, nobody will notice what you quoted in post 48, or the conspicuous absence of it in your post and your reply to this one.
Old Trapper
Verified User
You have already shown that to be a lie.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
John Barron
Verified User
This reminds me of Legion. He asks a question then blocks anyone who would give him the answer that he doesn't want to read.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
it would help if you realized that accusations are not evidence.......
Give an example.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
????......you need an example?.........because it isn't obvious to you I accuse you of being a simple minded twat.......the fact that I accused you of being a simple minded twat is NOT evidence of you being a simple minded twat........however, the fact you didn't realize that a mere accusation is not evidence, IS evidence that you are a simple minded twat.......
further, in every legal proceedings both sides put together a written list of facts they present to the court in a trial summary.......they always contradict each other, if they didn't the case wouldn't have to be tried.........they are accusations, they cannot both be true........they are not evidence.......real evidence is submitted to convince a jury whether the accusations are true or not.......the jury does not treat the accusation itself as evidence.......
Last edited:
I think that, if humanly possible, one should avoid giving offence in political discussion, but, like the Brexiteers over here, right wing Americans seem to be full of a huge adolescent emotionalism which, when combined with a considerable ignorance of the real world, makes for a very offensive approach to discussion, particularly when they have been brought up to see the world in terms of groups, gender-, skin colour-, nationality- or whatever else-based as in perpetual competition. When you are on the receiving end of their ugly attempts to avoid discussion by insulting you, you tend to lose sympathy, I think. Can one really have a rational discussion with someone who detests it and wants to take refuge in insult?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
sounds like you're telling them to sod off........