The Racist In Chief in full MAGA mode this morning
- Thread starter THE_DEVIL
- Start date
Based on his speeches. Back then, the Republican Party was all about expanding the big tent.
Not anymore. Now, it's about rallying behind a white minority that thinks it is being "repressed".
The cult leader bashing strong and obstinate women. I don’t agree with all of their policies, but who cares. Trump knows to play the hits, bully women, make up xenophobic insults and the cult goes wild.
I think it should still be the former. But, the Dems caused this with there bourgeois/proletariat version of identity politics.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1111/juaf.12265?scroll=top&needAccess=true
Modern Dems are basically wannabe communists and many argue that classical liberalism is racist, attacking various underlying tenets of concepts of individual rights and freedoms.
Modern Dems are basically wannabe communists and many argue that classical liberalism is racist, attacking various underlying tenets of concepts of individual rights and freedoms.
Interesting rebuttal. I’ll have to go back and read the original article, and follow-up critiques.
You are hilariously moronic.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-review/
National Review
RIGHT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.
- Overall, we rate the National Review Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to misleading claims and occasional use of poor sources.
You know, for being the self proclaimed “party of personal responsibility,” you cons sure love to blame Democrats for...well, everything.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-review/
National Review
RIGHT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.
- Overall, we rate the National Review Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to misleading claims and occasional use of poor sources.
Saying America is a Melting pot isn't a microaggression.
Using that expression to push someone to abandon their heritage, or language of origin, is.
Kinda like all those people with their microaggressions telling others to "speak English"; like the two old racist white ladies that tried to tell a restaurant employee to "speak English" to his employees, and "go back to his own country" if he wanted to not speak in "American".
He was Puerto Rican, and he turned out to be the manager and he kicked their asses out.
So, yes, "melting pot" absolutely can be a microaggression, but only when people use it that way intentionally.
Of course, this is all well beyond National Review's level of understanding. If It Ain't White, We Don't Write It.
I guess the purpose of the tweets was an attempt to divide Dems. And as someone stated... because of the correct spelling in the tweets, it likely came from someone other than Trump.
The attempts to divide the Dems will fail as all Dems will unite for the Nov 2020 elections.
And there really is no need to feed the GOP base. The cultists are already convinced.
The attempts to divide the Dems will fail as all Dems will unite for the Nov 2020 elections.
And there really is no need to feed the GOP base. The cultists are already convinced.
We would be an entirely different country right now if Stephen Miller had made it into Epstein’s inner circle. Give me the wrath of Fran, Fran!!
Prove it.....that it’s not.
I think most of the country is there, republicans and Dems, and it’s the noisy fringes that are the problems.
Last edited:
If you are going to address issues you need discussion. Part of the discussion is putting forth ideas. Ideas are not dangerous.
Trumps diatribe, besides being racist, discourages debate of ideas.
M<y question honestly is what is the point of my President's tweets this AM? How do they add to the national discussion in a meaningful, positive way?
Just more red meat for his minions to chew upon while he works on eroding the rights granted to the US citizens by the Constitution.
Just more red meat for his minions to chew upon while he works on eroding the rights granted to the US citizens by the Constitution.
It would be really awkward if there were like a zillion tweets from him talking shit about our country.
If they were born here, they didn't flee from places.
It is almost as if he doesn't realize his MAGA slogan implies America is shit.
To be fair, the msm sh!t on all of those candidates the entire primary season and didn’t rip trump.
‘Cept for that time(s) he attacked ted Cruz, Jeb bush, Nancy pelosi, joe Biden, etc. but, yes except for all of those white politicians he attacks regularly, he only attacks poc.
Just to clarify here, what is it that you find “hilariously moronic about this?”
Modern progressives talk about identity differently now than in prior eras (Eg the Reagan era earlier quoted). The dominant framework stems from critical theory. Everything is framed in terms of power disparities and race is assumed to be a major source of variance regardless of status.
Do you think that movements like #metoo that flip presumption of innocence and are used as political weapons (Eg kavanaugh) help unify the discourse or piss people off and create a bigger schism? What I’m seeing is the latter. I think this sort of thing, along with the mainstream media laying off trump and refusing to cover equitably the other republican politicians in the primary, led to trump.
Trump was a plurality candidate that ran on one stupid issue (Mexicans) in primary season. If the media didn’t spend 90 percent of air time talking about his juvenile insults of other candidates, you think he wins?
I don’t know a single person who admits they voted for trump in the primaries and only a few that admit it in the general. Of course, I’m in a very skewed space, but he didn’t have a lot of support early.
It’s not his. It’s Reagan’s. And, when Reagan was running that, interest rates were at >20 percent under carter.
I’m convinced that trump doesn’t operate from any sort of principled stance.
Oh, a thing to note. I think Bill Maher got this right. It is germane to my Dems caused this line. Modern democrats argue that Reagan employed nixon’s “Southern strategy” and spoke in code (Eg “welfare queen”). Thus, the democrats were railing on Reagan for being racist.
Moving forward, “George Bush hates black people.” Katrina was portrayed as a racist even.
Joe Biden is an implied racist because he talked to segregationists in the 70s and didn’t support bussing.
Nancy Pelosi is a racist because she disagrees with AOC.
I think the republicans would love to argue big tent today. Many try. But, the Democrats will hang the “racist” label in every major contest on Republican white candidates (Eg desantis running against Gillum).
It is a default part of the democratic strategy and has been for a very long time.
You keep blaming the media for Trump's win in the primaries. Why?
I figured the more anyone saw or read about what he was saying the more you'd be repulsed by him. For some reason it had the opposite effect on Republicans.
He's somehow even more ridiculous now and has a mid nineties approval rating among Republicans.
The fact that Trump has an elementary school level mentality in attacking anyone who he feels is a threat or who disagrees with him does not summarily dismiss his often racist comments. It just means that in addition to being a bigot, he's a raging asshole.
During the primaries, in my opinion, I think democrats saw trump as the easiest candidate to beat. The coverage ratio was high. No dirt was covered on trump. The coverage of potential contenders like Jeb and Cruz was very negative. Much of it focused on trump’s slogan like insults. Trump never held a majority. He barely beat Cruz.
I agree with you that it would have been nice had people been more repulsed by trump. But, the media basically kid gloved him in the primaries. Once he got out of the primaries, he was going to the lesser of two evil conservative vote. Any candidate would have. The voting distribution was similar to pre Obama elections.
I see the current “approval” ratings as more of a referendum on biased media coverage than anything particular pro trump.
