Trump

[Diebert van Rhijn]

A bit of humor I came across, no fact intended: "66% of impeached presidents were impeached for humiliating Hillary Clinton".

[Pam Seeback]

As an aside, where Kierkegaard failed to become a Son of God was in his idea of the returning Knight of Faith as one who grasps the finite. It is here where he demonstrates the very act deemed by the Buddha to be the cause of suffering, that of attachment to the finite.

No, you’ve misunderstood Kierkegaard here. When he talked about “grasping the finite on the strength of the absurd”, he was actually expressing the wisdom of non-attachment. He was in alignment with the Buddha.

All I can say, from the perspective of my own knowledge and experience of wisdom, is that enlightened rebuking can be just as valid and as pure as enlightened forgiving. It all depends on the circumstances.

As I said above, I don't argue that rebuking is a valid part of enlightenment, it is what you and I are doing in this thread. But where your rebuking includes the dividing of self into good and evil (Thunberg's view vs. Trump's view, David's view vs. Kevin's view) invoking the necessary passion to keep the opposites apart and at eternal war with one another, mine does not.

And yet here you are, in opposition to my point of view, just as I am in opposition to yours. It takes two to disagree.

What do you think of the spiritual concept of reconciling or uniting the opposites, something akin to returning or lifting up one's (now enlightened) fallen devil to heaven wherein he once lived?

We have to be careful not to conflate different principles here.

On the one hand, we can’t mix good with evil without destroying the good, just as we can’t mix truth with falseness without destroying the truth. Polar opposites are polar opposites. “Whoever is not for me is against me”, as Jesus once said.

But what we can do is recognize that good, evil, truth and falsness are part of the All and thus equally empty of their own nature. They are illusory manifestations created by God, if you will. The enlightened person naturally embraces all of these things as part of his embrace of God Himself.

And yet the fact remains: we can’t mix good with evil without destroying the good, and we can’t mix truth with falseness without destroying the truth.

Kierkegaard from Sickness Unto Death:

"The human being is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation which relates itself, or that in the relation which is its relating to itself. This then is the formula which describes the state of the self when despair is completely eradicated: in relating to itself and in wanting to be itself, the self is grounded transparently in the power that established it."

There are no opposites present in the above revelation. It seems that after the Knight of Faith takes the leap over the abyss or gap between self and God wherein all his longing for union - his suffering - resided, he wakes up to realize that in truth, the self was always and ever, relating to itself. It is in this moment of Self recognition or realization that the opposites are reconciled (not mixed) by self unto itself as in "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."

[Kevin Solway]

A bit of humor I came across, no fact intended: "66% of impeached presidents were impeached for humiliating Hillary Clinton".

What I find strange about American politics is that Americans regard being "impeached" as a bad thing. What should be a bad thing is being found guilty, rather than merely being charged. Lots of people are charged and then, in a trial where the accused person can defend themselves, it is confirmed that they are entirely innocent - since in a civilized world they are already held to be innocent, until found guilty.

[Kevin Solway]

Further to my recent post on why "impeachment" hasn't yet happened:

Imagine a world where people are continually being charged with crimes, for the purpose of doing them harm, but their cases never go to trial and they are never given a chance to defend themselves. That would be one hellish, uncivilized world. That's why our justice system demands that charges must be formally laid with the court, so that a fair trial can happen. The senate may not be entirely fair, but at least the defendant will be able to defend himself, and question his accusers, which is of vital importance. It seems that the democrats want to completely overturn the justice system. Gone are the days when people were held to be innocent until proven guilty.

I can only hope that the democrats come to their senses.

[Pam Seeback]

Further to my recent post on why "impeachment" hasn't yet happened:

Imagine a world where people are continually being charged with crimes, for the purpose of doing them harm, but their cases never go to trial and they are never given a chance to defend themselves. That would be one hellish, uncivilized world. That's why our justice system demands that charges must be formally laid with the court, so that a fair trial can happen. The senate may not be entirely fair, but at least the defendant will be able to defend himself, and question his accusers, which is of vital importance. It seems that the democrats want to completely overturn the justice system. Gone are the days when people were held to be innocent until proven guilty.

I can only hope that the democrats come to their senses.

As I understand impeachment proceedings, the democrats have no choice but to submit the articles of impeachment to the Republican-dominant Senate so Trump's trial will happen, be it the end of January as predicted or be it later.

The democratic ideal of 'people being held to be innocent until proven guilty' may or may not be honoured by the legal participants, but within the world of non-legal subjective human conversation, it appears as if assumed guilt is held to be a lot more interesting than presumed innocence. Assumed guilt, even one's own assumed guilt, holds the existential sway of intensity and substance; apparently thinking of the-self-as-evil is potentially highly seductive-addictive.

[jupiviv]

A bit of humor I came across, no fact intended: "66% of impeached presidents were impeached for humiliating Hillary Clinton".

Respectful to the Gods and meek,
According to one's lights, I grant
'Twere well to be;
But, on my word,
Child, any one, to hear you speak,
Would take you for a Protestant,
(Such [red herring] I do foresee
When the charm'd fume comes strong on me,)
Or powder'd lackey, by some great man's board,
A deal more solemn than his Lord!
Know'st thou not, nixie, thine Eros loves to laugh?
And shall a God do anything by half?
He foreknew and predestinated all
The Great must pay for kissing things so small

[jupiviv]

The impeachment charges appear to be sound, as are a few additional charges like obstruction (both Comey & recent) & emoluments.

The problem I have with them is that they are all extremely weak, or possibly entirely without substance.

Well I have two problems with your position. First, it's not really your position. It's a placeholder for other, tangentially related positions you do not care to defend directly. Sort of like David's bizarre defense of Greta Thunberg.

Second, due to the first problem, your arguments in support of this position are nonsensical because they're all premissed upon the aforesaid tangentially related positions which the actually debated position is supposed to vindicate by proxy.

I was saying that if you deeply insult people, by calling them "Nazis" or "irredeemably deplorable" or whatever, then they will naturally turn against you, probably for the long term.

This is another context-less truism. Yes, people turn against or disapprove of other people for many different reasons.

Trump has indeed said very bigoted and racist things about millions of immigrants, without apologising afterward.

I don't think he has. What is your definition of "racist". He naturally won't apologize if he hasn't done anything wrong.

One recent noteworthy example is telling immigrant Congresspeople to go back to their countries of origin if they don't like the US. That is classic racist language and extremely dangerous for all immigrants in the US, including my own friends and relatives.

Compared to that, Hillary's statement is anodyne. She said half of Trumpists were deplorable because of racist/sexist views and the other half wanted positive change, and then apologised for saying "half".

I think she obviously believes that "half", or at least 30% of Trump's supporters are "irredeemably deplorable". That's why she said it. I think she was apologizing to try and reduce the damage to her election prospects.

I think she is deeply deluded about the nature of Trump supporters.

How do you know what Clinton "obviously believes" from one comment she made 3 years ago? In fact, before I paraphrased the full quote your entire argument against her seemingly rested on a single phrase from her actual comment. She didn't specify whatsoever how many or what group/type of people comprise each of the "halves".

If I already have an opinion, and have verified that it is true, then what the media says doesn't make any real difference.

I know. That is why you are deeply deluded, or at least totally ignorant about the nature of empirical knowledge.

Many feminists, for example, argue that women are equal to men, and are of equal value to men in all regards. They argue that women are equal at sport and at work, and that men and women are mentally and physically equal, and that men and women are equal at fighting, and also that women are superior.

I'm not aware of any feminists who argue most of the above, let alone all of them simultaneously.

The notion that things are of "equal" or "different" value based on specific, isolated attributes makes no sense to me. A single conscious experience, like an "absolute" truth, is meaningless and worthless in itself. Like all things, it's meaning and value lie in the things it is connected to = ultimately all things. Valuation is just a kind of conscious experience, so a philosophy of values is infinitely more complex than whatever you're trying to assert here.

Marxists tend to view that all people should be equally rewarded for their work, and that one person's work is not more valuable than some other person's work.

Time spent working, not work itself. That view likely originates in the mediaeval Islamic idea of Allah-ordained free-trade untainted by govt. intervention (military force, taxation, price fixing, debt/credit issuance, national currencies etc.). It was developed by Enlightenment-era western economists like Adam Smith and further modified by Marx as part of his critique of capitalism. Also, equal pay isn't equal value.

You're making too many vague false claims for me to argue with your points (if any).

All of the groups I mention tend to think that all cultures are of equal value, except that their own culture is superior to all others, and that other cultures should be eliminated by force.

Doesn't make sense.

Trump is Comey's boss and he can sack him any time he wants.

Is this what you think is appropriate or what you think is appropriate under US law?

If he thinks that Comey is trying to undermine the democratically elected government, and has good reason to think that, then it is appropriate
that he sacks Comey. That should be appropriate under US law.

Again, you are introducing a lot of very broad terms and (presumably) expecting me to agree with your definitions of them. For one thing, you haven't explained why it is inherently wrong for a govt employee to undermine their govt.

You did not make it clear what the context of the criminality itself is

Well, I said that "They are criminals, cheating innocent people out of their hard-earned money on the pretext that it is for a good cause." Generally speaking, that's not against the law because it would be impossible to implement such a law. Virtually all advertising cheats people out of their money. So I think I made it clear that I was using an extended definition of "criminality".

A lot of laws deal with cheating people out of their money. But that is irrelevant because you evidently believe criminality and legality are separate things, that immoral/deluded behaviour can be called "criminal" even if legal. Which makes most of your arguments on this topic self-contradictory. And that is quite apart from the numerous times you've called virtually all humans extremely deluded and (therefore) insane.

My point was that continually accusing a particular individual, by name, of being a criminal, and not being clear of what you mean by "criminal", and not providing any proof of criminality, is bad.

Sure, that is very bad. It is *equally* bad if not worse to misrepresent correct accusations, for example by divorcing them from their contexts, redefining their premisses in order to render them irrational by equivocating them with truisms containing the same or similar vocabulary, and dismissing proofs on spurious and ad hoc grounds.

[jupiviv]

having "either an active or passive role", as you just made up somehow.

The article says it plays/ed a role.

What has civil unrest in all its forms to do with using or abusing democratic processes?

Unrest of any kind often includes intent to change the structure of govt./society = abuse of democratic process acc to your def. Also *no* form of unrest is necessarily tolerated in a democracy. The secessio plebis was what the Romans called a type of event they obviously had reason to believe happened several times in the past, not a law as such. Again, please make the case for your definition of unrest as static, inherently embedded and tolerated component of unchangeable dem sys.

In the end in '68 another election was held and the result was a massive victory for conservative powers.

Due to a mix of crackdowns, concessions, abuse of power etc. by the govt. & ruling party, both of which were subsequently restructured - hence illustrating my point.

Crimes are simply defined by criminal law.

Crime has to be defined by more than criminal law for criminal law not to be the Mother of All. I reject your worship of such transcendental mammy-substitutes.

The impeachment charges appear to be sound, as are a few additional charges like obstruction (both Comey & recent) & emoluments.

There are some healthy doubts possible, for example by Jonathan Turley, law professor George Washington Uni and testified in Congress.

Who also testified to the opposite during the last one and here.

[jupiviv]

Was David's response predominantly dismissive? Yes. Was it any kind of substantive refutation or confutation? No. Perhaps he thought that given your time here you'd have a better grasp of 'QSR' philosophy and method. Do you want to know how your observations are wide of the mark at almost every turn?

Your thrilling answer might lead to a slightly more fruitful discussion than this one so yes. But you should probably post it in the relevant thread.

Agreed. I had that same thought. Might be a few days as I'll be 'incommunicado' for a bit.

This was 10 days ago. I have fasted since then in order to purify my chakras. They are now ready to process the full existential force of my wrongness about QSR and everything and David and stuff. May one haz one's logic-pearls, bro?

[jupiviv]

Since it's the season of goodwill and all that twee shit, let us pray with Father Kirk:

We pray for the happy and fortunate one, the one who for joy hardly knows where he is going, pray that you will draw him to yourself and let him learn that it is there that he is to go. We pray for the sufferer who in his misery does not know where he is to go, pray that you will draw him to yourself, so that both the happy one and the sufferer, however different their conditions are in life, might be united in one thing, not to know anyone else to go to than to you.

We pray for those who have need of conversion, that you will draw them to yourself from the way of perdition to the way of truth; for those who have turned to you and found the way, we pray that, drawn to you, they will make progress along the way. And since, when the truth is the way, there are “three ways to go wrong—to go the wrong way, to stumble on the way, to make a wrong turn away from the way”—we pray to you that you will draw the strayer back to yourself, will strengthen the stumbler on the way, will lead back to the way those who have gone astray.

Hope you ornery goblins have a wonderful (belated) Christmas and a great (albeit interesting) 2020!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

One recent noteworthy example is telling immigrant Congresspeople to go back to their countries of origin if they don't like the US. That is classic racist language and extremely dangerous for all immigrants in the US, including my own friends and relatives.

Yes, a vicious, foolish remark aimed at people whose politics I actually do often support. And yet two elements sttood out for me:

A. three of four colored "Progressive Democrat Congresswomen" were no immigrants, only one of the four addressed was born outside the US.
B. "and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done.”

Anyone who would have followed the political often vicious attacks between many conservative outlets or politicians and the "squad", leading up to this tweet would know they were charged with being communist and antisemitic, way too radical in their demands and criticism and yes, "un-american" in that sense in the eyes of many patriotic, pro-Israel people.

This is another of those events where there doesn't seem any obvious relation to race until you make it. Four completely different ethnicities, backgrounds, religions and only happen to squad together that moment in time and were addressed as the same political unit as they deliberately presented themselves as. One could say the blooper on the country of origin would not change the implied racism but Trump was actually stressing coming back again, which seems quite far from the specter of deporting or denying access, as invoked by many.

The article says it plays/ed a role.

The snoops article reads "the law did not launch the massive rise in the prison population". Which I quoted as "mostly debunking" the claim that Biden was instrumental in the doubling since it shows the pre-existing trends and only in a limited way the law had some causal link. Plus it funded "other programs and made changes aimed at keeping people out of prison". This is the opposite of "instrumental", namely: not instrumental.

Unrest of any kind often includes intent to change the structure of govt./society = abuse of democratic process acc to your def.

But what have sprawling, disrupting, often violent riots to do with any democratic process? This discussion was about for example voting in to power some kind of reformist party suggesting to change the foundations of the democratic process.

In the end in '68 another election was held and the result was a massive victory for conservative powers.

Due to a mix of crackdowns, concessions, abuse of power etc. by the govt. & ruling party, both of which were subsequently restructured - hence illustrating my point.

Nobody challenged the fairness of those elections so your point is wholly imaginary; the riots however were actually abusive and illegal, by law!

Crime has to be defined by more than criminal law for criminal law not to be the Mother of All.

But laws are a good way to agree on things without relying on feelings of the day, bribery, fashion, moral whims, mob justice and so on.

The impeachment charges appear to be sound, as are a few additional charges like obstruction (both Comey & recent) & emoluments.

There are some healthy doubts possible, for example by Jonathan Turley, law professor George Washington Uni and testified in Congress.

Who also testified to the opposite during the last one and here.

He's using mostly the same reasoning to explain why Obama couldn't be impeached at all. Not sure what you are reading into this.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Another hot item which might be solvable by reading and logic alone. But Steven Cortes (CNN, CNBC, Fox, Bloomberg) does a fine job:

Trump Didn't Call Neo-Nazis 'Fine People.

This story underlies my belief that news and political discourse have grown so much closer to hysteria. Everything's super-charged now!

[Dan Rowden]

Was David's response predominantly dismissive? Yes. Was it any kind of substantive refutation or confutation? No. Perhaps he thought that given your time here you'd have a better grasp of 'QSR' philosophy and method. Do you want to know how your observations are wide of the mark at almost every turn?

Your thrilling answer might lead to a slightly more fruitful discussion than this one so yes. But you should probably post it in the relevant thread.

Agreed. I had that same thought. Might be a few days as I'll be 'incommunicado' for a bit.

This was 10 days ago. I have fasted since then in order to purify my chakras. They are now ready to process the full existential force of my wrongness about QSR and everything and David and stuff. May one haz one's logic-pearls, bro?

I dunno, I've eaten a lot of pork over the last few days so I'm equivocal on this matter. I'll see if I can get to the half-finished draft over the weekend. It'll depend on how my Baby-Yoda meme fetish is going ....

[Kevin Solway]

The impeachment charges appear to be sound, as are a few additional charges like obstruction (both Comey & recent) & emoluments.

The problem I have with them is that they are all extremely weak, or possibly entirely without substance.

Well I have two problems with your position. First, it's not really your position.

It is indeed my position. The charges made against Trump are supposed to be "high crimes", but they aren't even crimes - even if the charges were true - which they don't appear to be.

Trump has indeed said very bigoted and racist things about millions of immigrants, without apologising afterward.

I don't think he has. What is your definition of "racist". He naturally won't apologize if he hasn't done anything wrong.

One recent noteworthy example is telling immigrant Congresspeople to go back to their countries of origin if they don't like the US.

I don't think that's racist or bigoted. He's telling people that if they prefer a culture from another country - possibly a country they come from, or their family comes from, or which they identify with, then they would be best off going to that country. It's a fairly sensible position.

That is classic racist language . . .

I don't believe in the existence of "racist language". There is racism, which is "prejudice based on race", but words can't be racist, because they can't be prejudiced. Words can't think.

How do you know what Clinton "obviously believes" from one comment she made 3 years ago?

Saying that half of Trump supporters are irredeemably deplorable, is very specific. She didn't say "Trump supporters", only "half of them". I don't think she would have said this if she didn't believe it was at least roughly true.

She didn't specify whatsoever how many or what group/type of people comprise each of the "halves".

In the context of what she had been talking about, her "deplorables" comment at least referred to the so-called "alt-right", and anti-feminists like Milo, and Gamergate - which, ironically, was mostly left-wing.

If I already have an opinion, and have verified that it is true, then what the media says doesn't make any real difference.

I know. That is why you are deeply deluded, or at least totally ignorant about the nature of empirical knowledge.

I don't regard the media to be an authority on empirical matters. It is mostly fake news.

The notion that things are of "equal" or "different" value based on specific, isolated attributes makes no sense to me.

I don't believe that. You know that more money will buy you more things than less money. More money has more value when it comes to buying food.

Men are generally better at sport than women, which is why men's and women's sports are separate.

All of the groups I mention tend to think that all cultures are of equal value, except that their own culture is superior to all others, and that other cultures should be eliminated by force.

Doesn't make sense.

That's right, it doesn't make sense. That's why I don't believe in their "equality". Their "equality" is a lie. In reality they believe they are superior.

. . .you haven't explained why it is inherently wrong for a govt employee to undermine their govt.

Public servants are employed by the government to serve the government. If they can't do the job they are paid to do, for any reason, then they should lose that job. They can work against the government if they want to, if they don't mind being sacked, and if they want to undermine the functioning of democracy.

[Dan Rowden]

One recent noteworthy example is telling immigrant Congresspeople to go back to their countries of origin if they don't like the US.

I don't think that's racist or bigoted. He's telling people that if they prefer a culture from another country - possibly a country they come from, or their family comes from, or which they identify with, then they would be best off going to that country. It's a fairly sensible position.

It might be if this were remotely what actually happened. In response to four democrat Congresswomen 'attacking' Pelosi and internal Democrat procedures and expressing a grievance about their perceived 'isolation', Trump said, among other flagrantly racist things:

"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,”

He employed overtly racist concepts so as to politically pile-on regarding an 'internal' Democrat spat. If had nothing the frig to do with anyone 'preferring' their own country (3 were born in America, another emigrated as a child). It was 100% racist dog-whistling to his 'deplorable' base. And it was, and is, quite deplorable. As are banal attempts to justify it.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If had nothing the frig to do with anyone 'preferring' their own country (3 were born in America, another emigrated as a child). It was 100% racist dog-whistling to his 'deplorable' base. And it was, and is, quite deplorable. As are banal attempts to justify it.

Are you just calling people disagreeing with your position "deplorable" now just because of some inability to embrace your views?

In any case, I disagree as well. It's a rather common, if not idiotic thing in discussions to suggest that someone should migrate, to leave the country if they're so unhappy with it at some fundamental level. Or to travel and visit some worse places so they can tone down a bit. That is not a racist dog whistle, just because in this case the people at the receiving end of this happen to be darker skinned.

Let me go back to the details, in case it's just a question of being misinformed about the context. The reason these women collectively were called "un-American" was because they were supporting each other without criticism or distancing, thereby conflating in the eyes of the public all four woman with Ilhan Omar, who seems to have made the most radical statements. Even the Democrats walked away from some! Trump of course capitalized on the obvious division and contradiction between his opponents. These are the stated criticisms leading up to the "whistle":

- many attacks on Israel and calling for boycotts: all perceived as anti-Semitic remarks and "dog-whistles"
- comparing US border facilities to concentration camps, implying they lived in some horrible Nazi-run country
- campaigning for lighter sentences for Somali-American Muslims trying to join ISIS (mostly Omar)

In my view, the problems started when the four women bundled up and stood together, thereby conflating their views, which were super-charging US and Israeli policies as evil, begging the question how evil other countries would be in comparison and why they didn't speak out about these bigger evils in the world -- those being the main reason colonists once founded the US.

Not that these details matter to those caught up in hysteria, labeling everything now "racist" and "deplorable". The desire for truth is the first thing that goes out of the window when emotions settle in. This holds just as true for camp Trump as any other political camp. Also politics, like erotics, are increasingly invading all facets of life and discussion. That has a lot to do with collectively living inside unsustainable dreams.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The charges made against Trump are supposed to be "high crimes", but they aren't even crimes - even if the charges were true - which they don't appear to be.

The term high crimes and misdemeanors has a bit of different origin and intent. They are different from the usual definition of "crimes". Like so much in the US constitution, the wording is vague and highly interpretive. Modern interpretation seems to agree it's only meant for serious offenses and especially anything "subverting" the system. But even this would need a lot of scrutiny. The fact that no conservative representative or senator goes along with it and even a few Democrats hesitate might tell us that we're in a highly interpretive realm still. Unless we enter paranoid schizophrenic realms and declare all Republicans to have reptile brains. Which is seriously what some seem to propose! The more likely truth is that both parties are somewhat out of their mind.

In the context of what she had been talking about, her "deplorables" comment at least referred to the so-called "alt-right", and anti-feminists like Milo, and Gamergate - which, ironically, was mostly left-wing.

It's true that Gamergate involved mostly young, liberal, Democrat leaning males but also included some females, non-white and LGBT. Which proves again it was not really about gender but about ideology and ethics. In a super-charged, over the top way, like the games.

And yet again, the opposition will rename and re-frame the topic as to make it about something else entirely. The feminine way to win.

[Kevin Solway]

Trump: "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,”

He employed overtly racist concepts . . .

Which concepts exactly? Remember that racism means "Prejudice based on race". It's not clear what you're talking about.

Do you have a completely different definition of racism?

[Kevin Solway]

The term high crimes and misdemeanors has a bit of different origin and intent. They are different from the usual definition of "crimes". Like so much in the US constitution, the wording is vague and highly interpretive.

Yes, the way things are going we could find someone guilty of a "high crime" just for being elected.

[Dan Rowden]

Trump: "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,”

He employed overtly racist concepts . . .

Which concepts exactly? Remember that racism means "Prejudice based on race". It's not clear what you're talking about.

Do you have a completely different definition of racism?

You'd make a great politician, Kevin. You want to divert attention from the fact that you had no actual idea of the dynamic Jupiviv was talking about with rubbish argumentation of label specifics. Jesus. Are you seriously suggesting that you need to have explained to you the basics of how a 'go back home' trope directed at persons of colour is not a classic racist trope? Seriously? It's a overt denial of their right as a citizen to say whatever the goddamn hell they like about the functionality and nature of their system of government or society on the basis of their colour (or ethnicity). Show me a single example of a white Member of Parliament being told to go 'back home' by this Administration because of such views and I'll recant and retract.

[Kevin Solway]

He employed overtly racist concepts . . .

Which concepts exactly? Remember that racism means "Prejudice based on race". It's not clear what you're talking about.

Do you have a completely different definition of racism?

rubbish argumentation of label specifics.

If you're going to accuse someone of being racist, then it's important to establish what definition of racism you're using, isn't it? That's not "rubbish argumentation of label specifics".

That's like asking a Christian to define what they mean by "God", and they respond "You're using rubbish argumentation of label specifics".

. . . a classic racist trope

I don't care about "tropes". I care about reality. "Tropes" are a creation of the imagination, just like so-called "racist language". Tropes can't be racist for the same reason that language can't be racist - because neither of these things can think.

So long as you don't define what you mean by "racism" then anything you say about it won't mean anything. I still don't know how you are defining "racism". The way you are talking about it doesn't fit with the standard definition I gave above.

It's a overt denial of their right as a citizen to say whatever the goddamn hell they like about the functionality and nature of their system of government or society on the basis of their colour (or ethnicity).

Since you won't define what you man by "racism", I'll go with the standard one, which is "Prejudice based on race".

Based on that definition, if you want to claim that Trump is racist then you need to establish two things:

1. Prejudice (ie, pre-judgement of people)
and
2. That he is speaking specifically about race or skin colour (and that his prejudice is based on that, rather than on some other thing)

You are presuming both of these, but you haven't demonstrated that they exist.

Firstly, Trump may not be presuming anything (with regard to race), and secondly he may not be speaking about race or skin colour, in the case that he is speaking about culture and beliefs.

Now you might not like his tone, and you might not like that he is speaking very harshly - and a lot of people on both sides of politics would probably agree with you on that - but you made a specific claim about racism, and have failed to back it up.

[Dan Rowden]

He employed overtly racist concepts . . .

Which concepts exactly? Remember that racism means "Prejudice based on race". It's not clear what you're talking about.

Do you have a completely different definition of racism?

rubbish argumentation of label specifics.

If you're going to accuse someone of being racist, then it's important to establish what definition of racism you're using, isn't it? That's not "rubbish argumentation of label specifics".

I didn't accuse Trump of being a racist. Have you lost your English comprehension skills along with your overall better judgement? I have no idea if Trump is an actual racist or not. I suspect not, but it's hard to tell. But employing racist tropes for political advantage is just as bad.

[Kevin Solway]

If you're going to accuse someone of being racist, then it's important to establish what definition of racism you're using, isn't it? That's not "rubbish argumentation of label specifics".

I didn't accuse Trump of being a racist.

You said "It was 100% racist dog-whistling to his 'deplorable' base."

Again, If you don't define what you mean by "racist" then what you're saying is meaningless.

"Racist tropes" is doubly meaningless.

Presumably you have a definition of "racist" whereby a person can do racist things without being racist. It doesn't make any sense to me. I need to hear some definitions.

You have talked about two different kinds of "racist". There is a person being a "racist". And then there are "racist" tropes (and "racist" language). What is the difference between these different kinds of "racist"?

My view on "tropes" is that they are a sign of desperation, for when a person doesn't have anything substantial to work with. You can make up any trope you want, without any evidence, and assign those tropes to any individual you don't like, again without any evidence. They are perfect for people without evidence.

[Dan Rowden]

Here's an example of a trope, Kevin, that you might variously label 'racist', 'bigoted' or 'cultural chauvinism', depending on your definitional (or delusional) proclivity:

I like a certain amount of multiculturalism, i find it fascinating meeting people from overseas, making friends, eating their food, cultural exchange, and a lot of the ones that come here are lovely people, and are integrating.

This is Trope-Heaven, Kevin.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Dan, could you help poor me to understand what is your issue with that example? I just don't get it and perhaps unlike you, I actually do meet in life personally and professionally daily with people from different countries and cultures, including oriental, Islamic, Middle Eastern and African. Most of them are already oriented internationally but not always.

And I still simply can't see it. But let me guess: is it about phrasings like"certain amount" or "integrating"? It seems to me that you are confusing a preference for maintaining the good within a society, like overarching values of general social behavior and norms, with some particulars like skewed crime statistics or mosque building. Culture means also simply any shared sense or conglomerate of knowledge, beliefs, arts, laws, customs etc.

Again, there's just no "there" there to address with your statements, Dan. All I read is a sentiment, some conflation of completely different things. And you are never specific on anything here. And you keep on addressing Kevin but he's not saying anything weird or uncommon. So I think it's just you.