LaxPower Back-Up Stick

runrussellrun wrote:Why won't I understand? Because I am too stupid? To racists? WHy? 90% of the district is white, so they should have put images of "otherisms" in the ad?

And, please respond to his lyrics and content. But you won't, and mostly can't, because they are scrubbed. Sorry, but Delgado made it about race when he chose to make the Painful CD. But, what is REALLY important is Delgado's corporate lawfirm, Akin Gump, and who it represents. He's sad that GE is gone? And yet has worked at a law firm that has helped, and continues to, ship US jobs to slaves overseas. Oh, and defended Paul Manfort

I have no idea whether you are "too stupid" nor "To racists?"...I assume you meant "too racist?".

What your posts seem to suggest is that you have an angry perspective about a black man, in his youth, expressing challenges to racial bigotry and other social issues in the medium of rap, or otherwise.

If you'd like to point me to other posts where you've demonstrated a more subtle comprehension about such perspectives and their expression, I'd be happy to change my opinion of the likelihood that I could explain the rationale of those particular lyrics. That said, I'm not a fan of that medium per se, so wouldn't be the best interpreter in any case. But some of the expressions about bigotry and social justice, sure, I can go there.

You say that Delgado made it about race because he expressed anger about the legacy of white supremacy a decade ago? Really? He made it about race?

In the posts above, you evidently don't see the signals about race that the ad expressed. Is that sheer ignorance or is it willful disregard? Or is it actually looking for an excuse to be angry? I dunno.

I don't have any particular stake in the specific candidates in that particular election and haven't examined the candidates' backgrounds in any depth, other than as follow-up to this controversy.

Maybe there is something to criticized, legitimately, about this candidate and his views. But I'd like to understand what he really believes as a more mature man today than how he expressed himself as an young 'artist' a decade ago.

On the Akin Gump stuff, perhaps there's something legitimate to question there as well. If so, I'd like to know what the candidate's views actually are.

As a lifelong Republican, I'm disturbed by the tack the GOP has taken to more and more overtly tailoring messaging to appeal to scared and angry white voters. It has a long history, but it seems to me that it has grown increasingly frequent and overt.

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote:bob dylan said it (sang it). racist?

nah, he didnt really mean it.

____ sang it in a rap song. racist? no, (s)he's black.

chris rock said it on stage. racist? no, he's joking.

____ said it or wrote it. not racist; that's art.

cosmo kramer said it, and he's racist, because he wasnt joking. because intentions matter.

so the question is- how can a word be inherently offensive when all of the above applies? it's clearly not. as long as you fit into the right use case.

So...what's your point?
You keep saying the same things as if there really is something revelatory to be said, but I can't discern what the heck it is supposed to be.

that words- by your own argument- cant be inherently offensive (because the context matters)

unless

there is a double standard

hint- there's a double standard

ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote:

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote:bob dylan said it (sang it). racist?

nah, he didnt really mean it.

____ sang it in a rap song. racist? no, (s)he's black.

chris rock said it on stage. racist? no, he's joking.

____ said it or wrote it. not racist; that's art.

cosmo kramer said it, and he's racist, because he wasnt joking. because intentions matter.

so the question is- how can a word be inherently offensive when all of the above applies? it's clearly not. as long as you fit into the right use case.

So...what's your point?
You keep saying the same things as if there really is something revelatory to be said, but I can't discern what the heck it is supposed to be.

that words- by your own argument- cant be inherently offensive (because the context matters)

unless

there is a double standard

hint- there's a double standard

Perhaps I missed it, but no one said that words without context are inherently offensive. Their usage is indeed context dependent, including their historical usage in context.

None of that logically means "there's a double standard".
Anyone is capable of saying offensive, racist or sexist, etc. things about someone else.
The question is always about how they've used the words and their intended target and purpose.

but if you get into the game of guessing other people's intentions- you'll get just that, guesses.

Hence the insidious nature of so called dog whistle comments, and their often successful results...

..

ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote:but if you get into the game of guessing other people's intentions- you'll get just that, guesses.

Where we appear to disagree, Chairman, is simply that I think intentions can be indeed be typically discerned with a high degree of certainty.

Sometimes by the plainly obvious intent, but in the cases of 'dog whistles' that may on their face be more questionable, I think the intent can be discerned by the patterns of behavior involved. Is the pattern repeated despite the issue being pointed out? Is the reaction to concerns being raised to be unapologetic for offenses given? Or are there countervailing statements and actions that would provide basis for giving the person the benefit of the doubt?

I don't think Farrahkhan's comments about Jews were difficult to understand as offensive, racist, and bigoted. I don't think David Duke has ever been difficult to read as such.

I think Donald Trump's life history of racist, bigoted comments and actions have removed any question as to whether he sees the world through a racially bigoted lens, so when he says offensive, bigoted things that might otherwise be only questionable from someone else, it's appropriate to recognize them for what they are.

When political ads are crafted in ways that have a long history of being recognized as dog whistles, we can understand their intent without tying ourselves into knots. These are pros who know what they're doing. And repeated such choices can be recognized.

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote:but if you get into the game of guessing other people's intentions- you'll get just that, guesses.

Where we appear to disagree, Chairman, is simply that I think intentions can be indeed be typically discerned with a high degree of certainty.

Sometimes by the plainly obvious intent, but in the cases of 'dog whistles' that may on their face be more questionable, I think the intent can be discerned by the patterns of behavior involved. Is the pattern repeated despite the issue being pointed out? Is the reaction to concerns being raised to be unapologetic for offenses given? Or are there countervailing statements and actions that would provide basis for giving the person the benefit of the doubt?

I don't think Farrahkhan's comments about Jews were difficult to understand as offensive, racist, and bigoted. I don't think David Duke has ever been difficult to read as such.

I think Donald Trump's life history of racist, bigoted comments and actions have removed any question as to whether he sees the world through a racially bigoted lens, so when he says offensive, bigoted things that might otherwise be only questionable from someone else, it's appropriate to recognize them for what they are.

When political ads are crafted in ways that have a long history of being recognized as dog whistles, we can understand their intent without tying ourselves into knots. These are pros who know what they're doing. And repeated such choices can be recognized.

But, there's no association, politically, with the former President, and member of the TUCC 2008 man of the year, but there is with the KKK and the current President? The former getting a "pass" on this not difficult to understand comment?
It's just they hypocrites honey.

If they are dog whistles, shouldn't they only be audible to the "dogs"??

runrussellrun wrote:

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote:but if you get into the game of guessing other people's intentions- you'll get just that, guesses.

Where we appear to disagree, Chairman, is simply that I think intentions can be indeed be typically discerned with a high degree of certainty.

Sometimes by the plainly obvious intent, but in the cases of 'dog whistles' that may on their face be more questionable, I think the intent can be discerned by the patterns of behavior involved. Is the pattern repeated despite the issue being pointed out? Is the reaction to concerns being raised to be unapologetic for offenses given? Or are there countervailing statements and actions that would provide basis for giving the person the benefit of the doubt?

I don't think Farrahkhan's comments about Jews were difficult to understand as offensive, racist, and bigoted. I don't think David Duke has ever been difficult to read as such.

I think Donald Trump's life history of racist, bigoted comments and actions have removed any question as to whether he sees the world through a racially bigoted lens, so when he says offensive, bigoted things that might otherwise be only questionable from someone else, it's appropriate to recognize them for what they are.

When political ads are crafted in ways that have a long history of being recognized as dog whistles, we can understand their intent without tying ourselves into knots. These are pros who know what they're doing. And repeated such choices can be recognized.

But, there's no association, politically, with the former President, and member of the TUCC 2008 man of the year, but there is with the KKK and the current President? The former getting a "pass" on this not difficult to understand comment?
It's just they hypocrites honey.

You Mean Like This?

Typical Lax Dad wrote:

runrussellrun wrote:

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote:but if you get into the game of guessing other people's intentions- you'll get just that, guesses.

Where we appear to disagree, Chairman, is simply that I think intentions can be indeed be typically discerned with a high degree of certainty.

Sometimes by the plainly obvious intent, but in the cases of 'dog whistles' that may on their face be more questionable, I think the intent can be discerned by the patterns of behavior involved. Is the pattern repeated despite the issue being pointed out? Is the reaction to concerns being raised to be unapologetic for offenses given? Or are there countervailing statements and actions that would provide basis for giving the person the benefit of the doubt?

I don't think Farrahkhan's comments about Jews were difficult to understand as offensive, racist, and bigoted. I don't think David Duke has ever been difficult to read as such.

I think Donald Trump's life history of racist, bigoted comments and actions have removed any question as to whether he sees the world through a racially bigoted lens, so when he says offensive, bigoted things that might otherwise be only questionable from someone else, it's appropriate to recognize them for what they are.

When political ads are crafted in ways that have a long history of being recognized as dog whistles, we can understand their intent without tying ourselves into knots. These are pros who know what they're doing. And repeated such choices can be recognized.

But, there's no association, politically, with the former President, and member of the TUCC 2008 man of the year, but there is with the KKK and the current President? The former getting a "pass" on this not difficult to understand comment?
It's just they hypocrites honey.

You Mean Like This?

Thanks TLD, you beat me to it!

Unfortunately the far right hate propaganda has been in full force re Obama for a decade, with Trump one of the worst practitioners.

I thought it was a relevant inquiry as to what candidate Obama thought about some of Rev. Wright's more incendiary statements, but was satisfied by his responses to that end and by his own statements about race, his demeanor throughout his Presidency in that regard. I thought he was a bit too hasty at times in some regards, while others I'm sure felt he was not forceful enough with regard to racial equality and justice.

Which isn't to say that I didn't find all sorts of his views and policies unfortunate or misguided, wrong-headed, etc. But I never had any real doubt about his patriotic views about America or his belief in "a more perfect union", including social justice for all Americans.

We've had a bunch of Presidents during my adult life(post' 76), but Trump is the first who I've thought was actually racist at his core, who in his unguarded moments welcomes openly the support of the the most egregious racists, someone who had and has great difficulty in seeing others empathetically. We've also never had someone as President who so openly flaunts his preference for authoritarianism, both in his own desire to utilize the levers of power autocratically and in his fawning over authoritarian leaders around the world.

Frankly, it's pretty mind blowing.

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

Typical Lax Dad wrote:

runrussellrun wrote:

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote:but if you get into the game of guessing other people's intentions- you'll get just that, guesses.

Where we appear to disagree, Chairman, is simply that I think intentions can be indeed be typically discerned with a high degree of certainty.

Sometimes by the plainly obvious intent, but in the cases of 'dog whistles' that may on their face be more questionable, I think the intent can be discerned by the patterns of behavior involved. Is the pattern repeated despite the issue being pointed out? Is the reaction to concerns being raised to be unapologetic for offenses given? Or are there countervailing statements and actions that would provide basis for giving the person the benefit of the doubt?

I don't think Farrahkhan's comments about Jews were difficult to understand as offensive, racist, and bigoted. I don't think David Duke has ever been difficult to read as such.

I think Donald Trump's life history of racist, bigoted comments and actions have removed any question as to whether he sees the world through a racially bigoted lens, so when he says offensive, bigoted things that might otherwise be only questionable from someone else, it's appropriate to recognize them for what they are.

When political ads are crafted in ways that have a long history of being recognized as dog whistles, we can understand their intent without tying ourselves into knots. These are pros who know what they're doing. And repeated such choices can be recognized.

But, there's no association, politically, with the former President, and member of the TUCC 2008 man of the year, but there is with the KKK and the current President? The former getting a "pass" on this not difficult to understand comment?
It's just they hypocrites honey.

You Mean Like This?

Thanks TLD, you beat me to it!

Unfortunately the far right hate propaganda has been in full force re Obama for a decade, with Trump one of the worst practitioners.

I thought it was a relevant inquiry as to what candidate Obama thought about some of Rev. Wright's more incendiary statements, but was satisfied by his responses to that end and by his own statements about race, his demeanor throughout his Presidency in that regard. I thought he was a bit too hasty at times in some regards, while others I'm sure felt he was not forceful enough with regard to racial equality and justice.

Which isn't to say that I didn't find all sorts of his views and policies unfortunate or misguided, wrong-headed, etc. But I never had any real doubt about his patriotic views about America or his belief in "a more perfect union", including social justice for all Americans.

We've had a bunch of Presidents during my adult life(post' 76), but Trump is the first who I've thought was actually racist at his core, who in his unguarded moments welcomes openly the support of the the most egregious racists, someone who had and has great difficulty in seeing others empathetically. We've also never had someone as President who so openly flaunts his preference for authoritarianism, both in his own desire to utilize the levers of power autocratically and in his fawning over authoritarian leaders around the world.

Frankly, it's pretty mind blowing.

That fact check article was unbelievable. I had forgotten most of what was in there..... I forgot McCain had a black baby. I am sure there was no possible appeal to racists in that claim. Just words....

HooDat wrote:If they are dog whistles, shouldn't they only be audible to the "dogs"??

It's indeed an imperfect term.

When you see someone blowing the whistle and you see the 'dogs' come running, it's not that hard to recognize that the 'dog whistle' has been blown.

But unlike 'dog whistles' not audible to the human ear, these are 'audible' to any human making the effort to pay attention. They are loudest and clearest to those who they are intended to attract, as well as to those who they are intended to disadvantage or insult.

But like any expert advertising, where this is more insidious is that many people are influenced in ways they are largely unaware are happening. They are unaware that the advertising is tapping into or reinforcing underlying preferences and biases which they may well deny consciously. They aren't conscious of the 'dog whistle' but nevertheless respond.

For instance, an ad for a mouthwatering burger and fries and the slogan "you deserve a break today" is targeting our impulse cravings for sugar, fat, salt ( based in our evolutionary scarcity but all of which we get in overabundance in our modern food system), not our best intentions to eat healthy nutritious meals (96% of people want to eat healthier, but frequently fail under impulse conditions). The slogan is not outright saying 'hey, tomorrow you can decide to eat something healthy, but right now eat the worst crap we've already made for you" but that's what it's nevertheless doing.

If we truly want to eat healthier, we need to recognize that ad for what it is really saying and to have healthy alternatives ready at hand that we're just as pleased, or more so, to eat, making it easier to ignore the ad. Takes a bit of effort to do what we intend and not follow our impulses unwittingly. But if we, in aggregate, don't bother to make that effort...the obesity crisis and skyrocketing healthcare costs of diabetes, heart disease, metabolic disorder, etc are the predictable outcome.

Similarly, if we understand that the intent of a dog whistle comment or ad is intended to tempt us to react in ways we might reject if consciously were aware, we need to recognize the dog whistle and its intent. So, we need to tune in.

I don't believe in banning burgers and fries nor dog whistle ads, but I'm 100% for consumers and voters being as consciously aware as possible of their intent to influence our unconscious.

Be conscious. Tune in.

I absolutely agree with your point regarding advertising and PR pulling on as many subliminal strings as possible. But it is not like the right is the only side that does it.

Your average consumer, and voter, has long been wise the power of subliminal messaging, and is not unaware of the psychological forces being directed at them. That is exactly why Trump's accusations of "fake news" are so effective. People sense they are being manipulated and he has given them a scapegoat. It doesn't help the dem cause that they have historically been the masters of messaging (most likely due to the preponderance of creative types in their midst), and therefore they are ripe for being incriminated.

Those who believe they are working to save the country from Trump-ism are doing their cause no favors when they play the role of the little boy who cried wolf. If everyone is a racist, then no one is. If everything is a dog whistle, then nothing is. If every sub-group is a victim, then no one is.

The message of the Dems in particular, but also the never-Trumpers in their rush for political allies, is getting diluted by lazy rhetoric and hip-shot accusations clearly intended to shut up rather than illuminate.

Our country needs better.

Right now, Ben Sasse and Rand Paul are the two most responsible politicians out there. And Geraldo Rivera is the most responsible journalist. The bit about a Paul and Geraldo has me really shaking my head....

Typical Lax Dad wrote:

runrussellrun wrote:

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote:but if you get into the game of guessing other people's intentions- you'll get just that, guesses.

Where we appear to disagree, Chairman, is simply that I think intentions can be indeed be typically discerned with a high degree of certainty.

Sometimes by the plainly obvious intent, but in the cases of 'dog whistles' that may on their face be more questionable, I think the intent can be discerned by the patterns of behavior involved. Is the pattern repeated despite the issue being pointed out? Is the reaction to concerns being raised to be unapologetic for offenses given? Or are there countervailing statements and actions that would provide basis for giving the person the benefit of the doubt?

I don't think Farrahkhan's comments about Jews were difficult to understand as offensive, racist, and bigoted. I don't think David Duke has ever been difficult to read as such.

I think Donald Trump's life history of racist, bigoted comments and actions have removed any question as to whether he sees the world through a racially bigoted lens, so when he says offensive, bigoted things that might otherwise be only questionable from someone else, it's appropriate to recognize them for what they are.

When political ads are crafted in ways that have a long history of being recognized as dog whistles, we can understand their intent without tying ourselves into knots. These are pros who know what they're doing. And repeated such choices can be recognized.

But, there's no association, politically, with the former President, and member of the TUCC 2008 man of the year, but there is with the KKK and the current President? The former getting a "pass" on this not difficult to understand comment?
It's just they hypocrites honey.

You Mean Like This?

Nope, not even close. The subject matter is the membership and friendship of well over two decades, of Barrack H. Obama and Trinity United Church of Christ. Particularly its leader Rev. Jeremiah Wright and giving the TUCC 'newsletter' it 2008 man of the year award to FarraCON. As if Wrights hatefilled sermons weren't enough. Where is the factcheck on THAT?

Typical Lax Dad wrote:

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

Typical Lax Dad wrote:

runrussellrun wrote:

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote:but if you get into the game of guessing other people's intentions- you'll get just that, guesses.

Where we appear to disagree, Chairman, is simply that I think intentions can be indeed be typically discerned with a high degree of certainty.

Sometimes by the plainly obvious intent, but in the cases of 'dog whistles' that may on their face be more questionable, I think the intent can be discerned by the patterns of behavior involved. Is the pattern repeated despite the issue being pointed out? Is the reaction to concerns being raised to be unapologetic for offenses given? Or are there countervailing statements and actions that would provide basis for giving the person the benefit of the doubt?

I don't think Farrahkhan's comments about Jews were difficult to understand as offensive, racist, and bigoted. I don't think David Duke has ever been difficult to read as such.

I think Donald Trump's life history of racist, bigoted comments and actions have removed any question as to whether he sees the world through a racially bigoted lens, so when he says offensive, bigoted things that might otherwise be only questionable from someone else, it's appropriate to recognize them for what they are.

When political ads are crafted in ways that have a long history of being recognized as dog whistles, we can understand their intent without tying ourselves into knots. These are pros who know what they're doing. And repeated such choices can be recognized.

But, there's no association, politically, with the former President, and member of the TUCC 2008 man of the year, but there is with the KKK and the current President? The former getting a "pass" on this not difficult to understand comment?
It's just they hypocrites honey.

You Mean Like This?

Thanks TLD, you beat me to it!

Unfortunately the far right hate propaganda has been in full force re Obama for a decade, with Trump one of the worst practitioners.

I thought it was a relevant inquiry as to what candidate Obama thought about some of Rev. Wright's more incendiary statements, but was satisfied by his responses to that end and by his own statements about race, his demeanor throughout his Presidency in that regard. I thought he was a bit too hasty at times in some regards, while others I'm sure felt he was not forceful enough with regard to racial equality and justice.

Which isn't to say that I didn't find all sorts of his views and policies unfortunate or misguided, wrong-headed, etc. But I never had any real doubt about his patriotic views about America or his belief in "a more perfect union", including social justice for all Americans.

We've had a bunch of Presidents during my adult life(post' 76), but Trump is the first who I've thought was actually racist at his core, who in his unguarded moments welcomes openly the support of the the most egregious racists, someone who had and has great difficulty in seeing others empathetically. We've also never had someone as President who so openly flaunts his preference for authoritarianism, both in his own desire to utilize the levers of power autocratically and in his fawning over authoritarian leaders around the world.

Frankly, it's pretty mind blowing.

That fact check article was unbelievable. I had forgotten most of what was in there..... I forgot McCain had a black baby. I am sure there was no possible appeal to racists in that claim. Just words....

and then Mclame invites the guy behind the black baby ads to his funeral. Can't we all just forgive

runrussellrun wrote:

Typical Lax Dad wrote:

runrussellrun wrote:

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote:but if you get into the game of guessing other people's intentions- you'll get just that, guesses.

Where we appear to disagree, Chairman, is simply that I think intentions can be indeed be typically discerned with a high degree of certainty.

Sometimes by the plainly obvious intent, but in the cases of 'dog whistles' that may on their face be more questionable, I think the intent can be discerned by the patterns of behavior involved. Is the pattern repeated despite the issue being pointed out? Is the reaction to concerns being raised to be unapologetic for offenses given? Or are there countervailing statements and actions that would provide basis for giving the person the benefit of the doubt?

I don't think Farrahkhan's comments about Jews were difficult to understand as offensive, racist, and bigoted. I don't think David Duke has ever been difficult to read as such.

I think Donald Trump's life history of racist, bigoted comments and actions have removed any question as to whether he sees the world through a racially bigoted lens, so when he says offensive, bigoted things that might otherwise be only questionable from someone else, it's appropriate to recognize them for what they are.

When political ads are crafted in ways that have a long history of being recognized as dog whistles, we can understand their intent without tying ourselves into knots. These are pros who know what they're doing. And repeated such choices can be recognized.

But, there's no association, politically, with the former President, and member of the TUCC 2008 man of the year, but there is with the KKK and the current President? The former getting a "pass" on this not difficult to understand comment?
It's just they hypocrites honey.

You Mean Like This?

Nope, not even close. The subject matter is the membership and friendship of well over two decades, of Barrack H. Obama and Trinity United Church of Christ. Particularly its leader Rev. Jeremiah Wright and giving the TUCC 'newsletter' it 2008 man of the year award to FarraCON. As if Wrights hatefilled sermons weren't enough. Where is the factcheck on THAT?

Like I said, I saw Obama selling bean pie and the final call near Grove Hall....... he hates white people.... look at his staff. The facts speak for themselves....... Donald would have hired more black people if they were qualified....as you know, he only hires the best people.......

http://p2008.org/obama/obamaorggen.html

MDlaxfan76 wrote:
I thought it was a relevant inquiry as to what candidate Obama thought about some of Rev. Wright's more incendiary statements, but was satisfied by his responses to that end and by his own statements about race, his demeanor throughout his Presidency in that regard. I thought he was a bit too hasty at times in some regards, while others I'm sure felt he was not forceful enough with regard to racial equality and justice.

Which isn't to say that I didn't find all sorts of his views and policies unfortunate or misguided, wrong-headed, etc. But I never had any real doubt about his patriotic views about America or his belief in "a more perfect union", including social justice for all Americans.

We've had a bunch of Presidents during my adult life(post' 76), but Trump is the first who I've thought was actually racist at his core,based on what, his belonging to a hate filled church for 20 years? who in his unguarded moments welcomes openly the support of the the most egregious racists WHO, name names, someone who had and has great difficulty in seeing others empathetically. We've also never had someone as President who so openly flaunts his preference for authoritarianism, both in his own desire to utilize the levers of power autocratically and in his fawning over authoritarian leaders around the world.

Frankly, it's pretty mind blowing.

You last paragraphs says it all. Obama never repudiated Rev. Wright until he had too. Michelle Obama spoke, along with Farracons wife and Rev. Wrights, saying hateful things towards whites. Please show us all one hateful racist thing that Trump said or did (beside the blanket lawsuit of the 1970's & some casino stuff, wasn't he joking)
Remember the 2010 Ad run by Sen. John Mclame, where he called all mexicans murderers, home invaders? No? Hear, let me re-fresh your memories>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0lwusMxiHc

We get it, the hate is marrow deep. I don't blame you. But, anyone know a good gook food restaurant in Newport, RI. (just like Trump, chanelling my inner John McCain )

runrussellrun wrote:

MDlaxfan76 wrote:
I thought it was a relevant inquiry as to what candidate Obama thought about some of Rev. Wright's more incendiary statements, but was satisfied by his responses to that end and by his own statements about race, his demeanor throughout his Presidency in that regard. I thought he was a bit too hasty at times in some regards, while others I'm sure felt he was not forceful enough with regard to racial equality and justice.

Which isn't to say that I didn't find all sorts of his views and policies unfortunate or misguided, wrong-headed, etc. But I never had any real doubt about his patriotic views about America or his belief in "a more perfect union", including social justice for all Americans.

We've had a bunch of Presidents during my adult life(post' 76), but Trump is the first who I've thought was actually racist at his core,based on what, his belonging to a hate filled church for 20 years? who in his unguarded moments welcomes openly the support of the the most egregious racists WHO, name names, someone who had and has great difficulty in seeing others empathetically. We've also never had someone as President who so openly flaunts his preference for authoritarianism, both in his own desire to utilize the levers of power autocratically and in his fawning over authoritarian leaders around the world.

Frankly, it's pretty mind blowing.

You last paragraphs says it all. Obama never repudiated Rev. Wright until he had too. Michelle Obama spoke, along with Farracons wife and Rev. Wrights, saying hateful things towards whites. Please show us all one hateful racist thing that Trump said or did (beside the blanket lawsuit of the 1970's & some casino stuff, wasn't he joking)
Remember the 2010 Ad run by Sen. John Mclame, where he called all mexicans murderers, home invaders? No? Hear, let me re-fresh your memories>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0lwusMxiHc

We get it, the hate is marrow deep. I don't blame you. But, anyone know a good gook food restaurant in Newport, RI. (just like Trump, chanelling my inner John McCain )

Are we comparing Trump to Obama or Right and Farracon? i am confused?

All of them. Trump is a racist because of his associations, Obama is not. Eric Holder, the only AG in the history of the US to be......gee, forgot what Congress did to him....said some pretty racist stuff too. ASSociations are in the eye of the beholder stuff.

Trumps staff sure seems good enough to listen too when they are speaking as "unnamed" sources though.

Again, the hate is marrow deep. We get it. But, that same hate (disapproval rating) is fostered upon members of Congress. You get what you deserve. Didn't Obama say it best, Trump is the symptom, not the cause. Think about how true that is. He finally gets it. Too bad he didn't when he was in office.

runrussellrun wrote:All of them. Trump is a racist because of his associations, Obama is not. Eric Holder, the only AG in the history of the US to be......gee, forgot what Congress did to him....said some pretty racist stuff too. ASSociations are in the eye of the beholder stuff.

Trumps staff sure seems good enough to listen too when they are speaking as "unnamed" sources though.

Again, the hate is marrow deep. We get it. But, that same hate (disapproval rating) is fostered upon members of Congress. You get what you deserve. Didn't Obama say it best, Trump is the symptom, not the cause. Think about how true that is. He finally gets it. Too bad he didn't when he was in office.

Yep too bad.