UK condemns Trump’s racist tweets in unprecedented attack against US congresswomen - Page 17 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15020617
Godstud wrote: Racism exists because it is perpetuated by racists, like Trump, Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation.


No, it exists because people like you accuse others of racism for simply disagreeing with you.

It's impossible to deal with real instances of racism when you insist on calling the most mundane, meaningless shit "racism"...
#15020621
SolarCross wrote: It is a basic corruption of semantic taxonomy to use one word indiscriminately for unrelated subjects.


"Racist" and "racism" are the liberal's panacea. When they have nothing intelligent to offer, it's their "go to"...
#15020623
Racism/racial discrimination is a very well-defined concept that explicitly applies to the tweets made by Trump for the reasons already explained.

As I said earlier: Trump juxtaposes these women with the people of the United States and the nation as if they are separate alien entities.

Full Quote:

Trump wrote:So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly ...and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how ....it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!


Aside from the fact that Trump considers these women as separate from the United Stated "nation", he is explicitly saying that these women cannot be telling the US how it is to be run due to their origins. Their jobs as Congresswomen however is to do exactly that. And their rights as either citizens or as congresswomen should not be infringed due to their origins.

As per the definition of racism:

UNHCHR wrote:Adopted and opened for signature and ratification by General Assembly resolution 2106 (XX) of 21 December 1965
entry into force 4 January 1969, in accordance with Article 19
The States Parties to this Convention....

Resolved to adopt all necessary measures for speedily eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and manifestations, and to prevent and combat racist doctrines and practices in order to promote understanding between races and to build an international community free from all forms of racial segregation and racial discrimination,

Bearing in mind the Convention concerning Discrimination in respect of Employment and Occupation adopted by the International Labour Organisation in 1958, and the Convention against Discrimination in Education adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in 1960,

Desiring to implement the principles embodied in the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Al l Forms of Racial Discrimination and to secure the earliest adoption of practical measures to that end,

Have agreed as follows:

PART I

Article 1

1. In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.


There is a very clear attempt made here by people who are positively inclined towards racism intending to dilute the meaning of racism just so they can get away with saying racist things with impunity. This of course is a very transparent attempt that relies on nothing at all but mere repetition and empty assertions. There is not a single argument posted that contradicts the fact that Trump's tweets are racist as per the definition that exists since 1965. This is not a recent definition or a "post-modern definition" or a definition created by "cultural marxists". It is the definition that the US government under Lyndon Johnson adopted in 1965.
#15020624
noemon wrote: :lol: :lol: :lol: This is golden. A tweet that is complaining of people not posting the full quote is itself not posting the full quote.


We're still waiting for you to show us where he said "they should "go back to where they came from'.

Since you seem to believe that's what he said, your comments are largely dismissable given that the available evidence shows that he, in fact, didn't say that...
#15020627
Since you constantly support and argue for racism with whatever nonsense you can come up with, we can be rest assured that your comments are entirely dismissable and that your straw is nothing but a cheap attempt to ignore the preceding post.
#15020628
noemon wrote:Since you constantly support and argue for racism with whatever nonsense you can come up with, we can be rest assured that your comments are entirely dismissable and that your straw is nothing but a cheap attempt to ignore the preceding post.


I defy you to show where I've "argued for racism". What a ridiculous thing to say.

You're the one who claimed Trump's tweet was racist because, according to you, it said they should "go back where they came from".

The irrefutable, verifiable FACT is that HE NEVER SAID THAT.

Or are you going to now back-pedal and run away from your previous position while awkwardly pretending it's a position you never held?
#15020629
You are arguing for racism at this very moment by pretending that what Trump said is not racist at all. Your pretension is based on nothing but your own empty assertions.

BigSteve wrote:The irrefutable, verifiable FACT is that HE NEVER SAID THAT.


:knife:

Trump:

Trump wrote:So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly ...and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how ....it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!


BigSteve wrote:You're the one who claimed Trump's tweet was racist because, according to you, it said they should "go back where they came from".


"Go back from which they came" are all words that can be read out loud from Trump's tweet. Is there an issue with your reading comprehension?
#15020631
1. In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

By this definition every State in the world would be racist. Even the Soviet Union discriminated on citizenship based on decent. Virtually every state in the gives automatic citizenship to those descended from citizens. Now there are a few radical progressives like my self that want to take away citizenship if those individuals don't adhere to the civic values of the nation. I say remove the citizenship of fundamentalist Muslims even if their ancestors have lived here for hundreds of years.

Now if Trump had told Ayaan Hirsi Ali to go back to her own country that would most certainly be racist, but its leftists who have tried to limit this Black woman's free speech. And its the cultural Marxist Western European establishment, that refused to protect her, hoping to ensure that she was murdered, hence permanently shutting her up, that caused her to flee Europe for America, as the Jews has to flee from the Nazis in the nineteen thirties.
#15020635
Rich wrote:By this definition every State in the world would be racist. Even the Soviet Union discriminated on citizenship based on decent. Virtually every state in the gives automatic citizenship to those descended from citizens.


Article 2 of the Convention:

2. This Convention shall not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State Party to this Convention between citizens and non-citizens.


Now if Trump had told Ayaan Hirsi Ali to go back to her own country that would most certainly be racist,


There is no difference telling this person or another person the same thing. It's still racism.


but its leftists who have tried to limit this Black woman's free speech. And its the cultural Marxist Western European establishment, that refused to protect her, hoping to ensure that she was murdered, hence permanently shutting her up, that caused her to flee Europe for America, as the Jews has to flee from the Nazis in the nineteen thirties.


Seems like you have lost the plot. Everything that you consider "cultural marxism academia" and left has given this lady honours, has worked with her and etcetera.

wiki wrote:After gaining her degree, Hirsi Ali became a fellow at the Wiardi Beckman Stichting (WBS), a think tank of the center-left Labour Party (PvdA). Leiden University Professor Ruud Koole was steward of the party. Hirsi Ali's writing at the WBS was inspired by the work of the neoconservative Orientalist Bernard Lewis.[32]

She became disenchanted with Islam, and was shocked by the September 11 attacks in the United States in 2001, for which al-Qaeda eventually claimed responsibility. After listening to videotapes of Osama bin Laden citing "words of justification" in the Qur'an for the attacks, she wrote, "I picked up the Qur'an and the hadith and started looking through them, to check. I hated to do it, because I knew that I would find Bin Laden's quotations in there."[33] During this time of transition, she came to regard the Qur'an as relative – it was a historical record and "just another book."[34]

Reading Atheïstisch manifest ("Atheist Manifesto") of Leiden University philosopher Herman Philipse helped to convince her to give up religion. She renounced Islam and acknowledged her disbelief in God in 2002.[35] She began to formulate her critique of Islam and Islamic culture, published many articles on these topics, and became a frequent speaker on television news programs and in public debate forums. She discussed her ideas at length in a book entitled De zoontjesfabriek (The Son Factory) (2002). In this period, she first began to receive death threats.[35]
#15020638
noemon wrote:This Convention shall not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State Party to this Convention between citizens and non-citizens.


So states give themselves exclusive permission to be "racist". It's like the UK public smoking ban made by Westminster for everyone except for themselves.

Anyway Trump happens to be head of state.

Since when does the UN have any authority over anyone?
#15020644
noemon wrote:You are arguing for racism at this very moment by pretending that what Trump said is not racist at all. Your pretension is based on nothing but your own empty assertions.


The words "Go back to where they came from" does not exist in his tweets.

Now, if you want to pick out a word here and a word their, sure, you can get there. But, by that logic, you can pick and choose words from the Bible to say that "Satan is a joyous savior".

"Go back from which they came" are all words that can be read out loud from Trump's tweet. Is there an issue with your reading comprehension?


You're not being honest here. The sentence that says they should "go back to where they came from" does not exist in his tweets, and I challenge you to either show where it does or admit to being dishonest in your approach to this debate.

I harbor no illusion you possess the character to do either...
#15020651
noemon wrote:There is not a single argument posted that contradicts the fact that Trump's tweets are racist as per the definition that exists since 1965.

Trump's tweet was not racist. For the sake of demurrer, even if it was racist, that still would not imply any sort of legal consequences, because they United States cannot ratify or impose any treaty term that conflicts with the US constitution. The KKK and the Nazi party are racist organizations. You can be a member of either one in the United States, because the US first amendment is antecedent and superior to the UN's convention. The UN cannot violate the rights of the people of the United States secured by our Bill of Rights.

BigSteve wrote:No, it exists because people like you accuse others of racism for simply disagreeing with you.

It may be because the UN calls for criminalizing "hate speech," which has no force and effect in the United States. So by calling everything they disagree with "racist," they may think that it would require the US government to do something, and they do not understand that the US government does not have the authority to regulate speech.

noemon wrote:Trump juxtaposes these women with the people of the United States and the nation as if they are separate alien entities.

Their rights have not been violated in any way.

noemon wrote:There is a very clear attempt made here by people who are positively inclined towards racism intending to dilute the meaning of racism just so they can get away with saying racist things with impunity.

In the United States, you can say racist things with impunity. We have freedom of speech. You do not.

noemon wrote:It is the definition that the US government under Lyndon Johnson adopted in 1965.

The US cannot ratify a clause on "hate speech," because the first amendment precludes it in the United States. Freedom of thought implies the right to think racist thoughts. Freedom of speech implies the right to campaign for racist policies. You just don't get to infringe other people's rights unless you have done so by operation of law.

noemon wrote:You are arguing for racism at this very moment by pretending that what Trump said is not racist at all.

That's absurd.

SolarCross wrote:Since when does the UN have any authority over anyone?

They don't. It's meaningless.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It would be interesting to see how many PoFo users have had this particular racist phrase used against them.

Don't you want European peoples to leave North America and go back where they came from? It seems you've implied as much many times.
#15020652
Pants-of-dog wrote:And you were all like:

“That’s not racist at all. He was actually making an intelligent analysis of crime rates in the two countries!

Right?

I don't use "racism" as a psyop so I did not auto-accuse him of racism. In hindsight it probably was racism though because it was unprovoked and he did not know me as a individual. So he was judging me on what he assumed was my group identity.

Trump knows those congressmen by name at least. If you must assume it is an "attack" then it is a personal one not a racial or national one.
#15020656
SolarCross wrote:I don't use "racism" as a psyop so I did not auto-accuse him of racism.


You save that for here in PoFo?

In hindsight it probably was racism though because it was unprovoked and he did not know me as a individual. So he was judging me on what he assumed was my group identity.

Trump knows those congressmen by name at least. If you must assume it is an "attack" then it is a personal one not a racial or national one.


Trump does not know these women well enough tp know where they came from, so this actually supports the “racist” claim.
#15020659
Pants-of-dog wrote:You save that for here in PoFo?

Pofo is full of ideological evil clowns. It is certainly a place to pick up bad habits.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Trump does not know these women well enough tp know where they came from, so this actually supports the “racist” claim.

He does though. They are all employees in the same company, namely Congress etc. They know each other on a professional basis. All four of those are full of bile for Trump, and mostly because they assume he is white, so whatever applies to Trump also applies to them.
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 25

How about Russia uses a battle field nuclear we[…]

@Tainari88 , @Godstud @Rich , @Verv , @Po[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 29, Friday Mackenzie King wins Canadian el[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over main[…]