[jjbrr]

RedSpawn, on 2017-August-26, 08:42, said:

Ummm, because on both Blue & Red sides of the aisles -- illegal immigration is good for Big Business as it suppresses wage rates in various industries and thereby boosts profits of small and big businesses. Illegal immigrants who must buy goods and services are also a temporary boost to the economy (with the exclusion of any benefits they receive and even still ---> benefits such as food stamps are issued and are still spent and captured in the local economy through purchases. Finally, illegal immigrants will eventually become part of the voting populace when and if they are legalized, so politicians are very wary of destroying or pissing off a potential voting base.

So it's in a politician's best interest to let the immigration problem fester and marinate, since American prosperity has always been built on the backs of some underclass segment of the population.

i dont think you understood my post. but thank you for the explanation. i happen not to agree that it is an "immigration problem".

my mother is doing well. she lives in north houston by herself, but she's made the necessary precautions to hopefully get through this without any problems. she hopes the power stays on.

the company she works for is a subsidiary of a huge land-moving and disaster recovery corporation in Knoxville, TN. She is arranging hotel rooms for their management team to come to the area in preparation for what will undoubtedly be an enormous undertaking. For perspective, they had FEMA contracts for Katrina and arranged the clean up of the 9/11 tragedy.

it's nice to know that Mom does more to protect our fellow americans than trump ever has.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-August-08, 13:35, said:

Trump is becoming more inconsequential by the day. He has turned over the military commander-in-chief duties to the Pentagon, domestic policy to Congress, and foreign policy to Putin. Thank god he's still in charge of tweets!

I agree that Trump has foolishly delegated foreign policy to the military. He is not questioning the intelligence the military industrial complex supplies him with a long view of US American History and our imperialism tendencies. Also, he is not even looking at or taming the sacred cow in the 2018 federal budget. UGH!

https://www.youtube....h?v=8y06NSBBRtY ==> Best 2:30 video showing the True Power of the Office of the Presidency. Eisenhower is a true Republican. Tell it like it IS!
Great diagnosis--Freud!

[Winstonm]

Let's see, now that we have proof that Donald Trump was actively trying to build a Trump Tower Moscow during his campaign for president while at the same time denying any involvement whatsoever with Russia, and now that we have seen that his agenda is simply a personal vendetta against the Obama legacy, and while he has shown himself over and over by his words, deeds, and choices of cabinet members to be a white nationalist, which is simply newspeak for racist, the only people left who can be proud of their vote for Trump must share his values.

That is deplorable.

[barmar]

Graham Norton, the British chat show host, was on Colbert last night, and they got to talking about Trump. Norton brought up Trump's approval perccentage being in the 30's, and his question was "Who are those 30% who still think Trump is doing a good job?" (kind of like the old joke about the gum commercials -- who are the 1 out of 5 dentists who don't recommend sugarless gum?).

[Al_U_Card]

barmar, on 2017-September-06, 14:31, said:

Graham Norton, the British chat show host, was on Colbert last night, and they got to talking about Trump. Norton brought up Trump's approval perccentage being in the 30's, and his question was "Who are those 30% who still think Trump is doing a good job?" (kind of like the old joke about the gum commercials -- who are the 1 out of 5 dentists who don't recommend sugarless gum?).

Could it be the same 1 in 5 that know that aspartame/sucralose are toxic while sugar is just a natural hazard?
Trump does still represent a "finger" to the establishment but, clearly that sentiment is being eroded by his continued poor performance. (It is, however, poor unless it ends up working....which is a whole other debate.)

[Winstonm]

Chauncy DeVega understands what motivates Trump supporters:

Quote

In total, Trump is following a predictable pattern as to how racism often manifests in post-civil rights era America.

First, a prominent white person does something racist. Second, they deny that there was ever any racist "intent" to their words or deeds. Third, they claim that to accuse them of being racist is either unfair or just a surrender to "political correctness" -- this rhetorical move is especially true of white conservatives. Finally, they claim to be the "real victims" of "liberals," overly sensitive "minorities" or the "liberal media."

Public opinion polls and other research consistently and clearly show that Trump's voters believe that white Americans are "victims" of "reverse racism" in America and constitute a type of racial underclass who are being preyed upon by black and brown people. Trump's political shtick is prefaced on white victimology. This is a near-perfect union of a public and its leader.

As such, it is no coincidence that Donald Trump attacked the NFL and the NBA and then chose to praise the "patriotism" of NASCAR. The majority of players in the first two sports leagues are black. By comparison, NASCAR is a bastion of Southern whiteness where the Confederate flag, which could be more accurately described as the American swastika, is proudly displayed. In all, Donald Trump's attacks on the patriotism of black athletes is a cheap ploy to satisfy his most ardent supporters and to distract the public from the Russia scandal and many other failures of leadership and character.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-September-26, 19:33, said:

Chauncy DeVega understands what motivates Trump supporters:

Quote

At an Alabama rally Friday night President Trump lashed out at familiar targets, including Hilary Clinton and the media but also singled out a new opponent: NFL players who have held protests during the national anthem.

Trump told the Republican rally that such actions “disrespect our heritage.”
....
"Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, 'Get that son of a bitch off the field right now, out, he's fired. He's fired,'" Trump said.

When the President of the United States can call a dissenting black athlete a son of a bitch in a public rally:

Exactly what is he calling the dissident? A malcontent and a jerk perhaps?

Ummm, so what is he calling the mother of the dissident? A b!tch, perhaps?

And what is a b!tch per definition? A vulgar term that is generally thrown at a female jerk, and has been extended and sometimes unfairly used to describe strong willed, assertive, and mouthy woman who characteristically challenge or emasculate men.

So, is calling him a "son of a bitch" throwing shade to the strong willed, assertive, mouthy mother who birthed the disagreeable, misbehaving athlete? Hmmmm. Perhaps, especially with the assumption that the apple doesn't fall from the tree.

Does it make sense for a President of the United States to disrespect and disparage a black athlete AND his mother because he strongly condemns and vehemently disagrees with the athlete's unpatriotic behavior in a NFL game? Is it possible to hate an athlete's politics without personalizing the anger and showing contempt for both the athlete and his family?

Tough question.

The NFL pays this black athlete millions of dollars to play a professional sport; this act of generosity makes him a well-paid black citizen by any financial measure. These athletes have celebrity status and upper crust prestige in the black community.

A black athlete should respect the fact that he works for the NFL which is an American franchise owned by a majority of rich white men and that he is handsomely compensated to do his job with a "team player" attitude and an unquestioned measure of loyalty. Therefore, there is a tacit expectation that he dutifully performs his job tasks without much back talk or controversy to show gratitude.

When you see a well paid black athlete take a stand against the United States government and use a televised NFL game as a platform to showcase his perceptions of injustice, said athlete has moved from a beloved sports figure to "an uppity Negro" in a post-Jim-Crow Era. An "uppity Negro" is defined as a black person who uses his status to blatantly challenge racist societal norms through civil disobedience. Uppity Negroes (ab)use their status to take a stand and highlight problems to effect political change.

And the appropriate way to handle an uppity Negro is to make vulgar comments about him and his family in a political rally and suggest that the owners of the NFL fire him. That way, he will know his proper place on the socioeconomic ladder if he ever thinks about challenging the dictates of the establishment again. The best way to handle an uppity Negro is to make him an unemployed Negro.

The logic of our snake oil salesman is impenetrable and worrisome to say the least.

[Al_U_Card]

A goodly portion is dedicated to explaining Trump's "success".

[Winstonm]

RedSpawn, on 2017-September-26, 22:47, said:

When the President of the United States can call a dissenting black athlete a son of a bitch in a public rally:

Exactly what is he calling the dissident? A malcontent and a jerk perhaps?

Ummm, so what is he calling the mother of the dissident? A b!tch, perhaps?

And what is a b!tch per definition? A vulgar term that is generally thrown at a female jerk, and has been extended and sometimes unfairly used to describe strong willed, assertive, and mouthy woman who characteristically challenge or emasculate men.

So, is calling him a "son of a bitch" throwing shade to the strong willed, assertive, mouthy mother who birthed the disagreeable, misbehaving athlete? Hmmmm. Perhaps, especially with the assumption that the apple doesn't fall from the tree.

Does it make sense for a President of the United States to disrespect and disparage a black athlete AND his mother because he strongly condemns and vehemently disagrees with the athlete's unpatriotic behavior in a NFL game? Is it possible to hate an athlete's politics without personalizing the anger and showing contempt for both the athlete and his family?

Tough question.

The NFL pays this black athlete millions of dollars to play a professional sport; this act of generosity makes him a well-paid black citizen by any financial measure. These athletes have celebrity status and upper crust prestige in the black community.

A black athlete should respect the fact that he works for the NFL which is an American franchise owned by a majority of rich white men and that he is handsomely compensated to do his job with a "team player" attitude and an unquestioned measure of loyalty. Therefore, there is a tacit expectation that he dutifully performs his job tasks without much back talk or controversy to show gratitude.

When you see a well paid black athlete take a stand against the United States government and use a televised NFL game as a platform to showcase his perceptions of injustice, said athlete has moved from a beloved sports figure to "an uppity Negro" in a post-Jim-Crow Era. An "uppity Negro" is defined as a black person who uses his status to blatantly challenge racist societal norms through civil disobedience. Uppity Negroes (ab)use their status to take a stand and highlight problems to effect political change.

And the appropriate way to handle an uppity Negro is to make vulgar comments about him and his family in a political rally and suggest that the owners of the NFL fire him. That way, he will know his proper place on the socioeconomic ladder if he ever thinks about challenging the dictates of the establishment again. The best way to handle an uppity Negro is to make him an unemployed Negro.

The logic of our snake oil salesman is impenetrable and worrisome to say the least.

Quote

Does it make sense for a President of the United States to disrespect and disparage a black athlete AND his mother because he strongly condemns and vehemently disagrees with the athlete's unpatriotic behavior in a NFL game? Is it possible to hate an athlete's politics without personalizing the anger and showing contempt for both the athlete and his family?

Tough question.

It's not a tough question when you compare Trump's responses to white athletes and his behavior concerning white men.

[barmar]

RedSpawn, on 2017-September-26, 22:47, said:

So, is calling him a "son of a bitch" throwing shade to the strong willed, assertive, mouthy mother who birthed the disagreeable, misbehaving athlete? Hmmmm. Perhaps, especially with the assumption that the apple doesn't fall from the tree.

SOB is an idiom. It should not be interpreted literally. No one who calls someone else an SOB is thinking at all about the target's mother. He's just disparaging the target themselves.

Of course, one could interpret any disparagement of someone's character as a reflection of their parents, since they raised the person. But it's not the same as saying directly to the parent "How could you allow your child to act this way?"

It's bad enough that Trump insulted the athletes who are protesting. We don't have to impute additional motives that are almost certainly not there. Trump isn't that nuanced.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-September-27, 08:59, said:

It's not a tough question when you compare Trump's responses to white athletes and his behavior concerning white men.

Winston, wait it gets better. He then uses a Jamaican athlete, Usain Bolt, who shows respect for the US flag during the playing of the national anthem at the London 2012 Summer Olympics, as a prime example of a fine African-American knowing his place and behaving appropriately.

https://www.yahoo.co...-074828646.html

Please get Trump out of the Twitterverse! His politricks are not working. If he doesn't even have the time to conduct a proper due diligence and uses a faulty comparison, he should avoid any and all forms of rhetoric and electronic communications.

[RedSpawn]

barmar, on 2017-September-27, 09:23, said:

SOB is an idiom. It should not be interpreted literally. No one who calls someone else an SOB is thinking at all about the target's mother. He's just disparaging the target themselves.

Of course, one could interpret any disparagement of someone's character as a reflection of their parents, since they raised the person. But it's not the same as saying directly to the parent "How could you allow your child to act this way?"

It's bad enough that Trump insulted the athletes who are protesting. We don't have to impute additional motives that are almost certainly not there. Trump isn't that nuanced.

Barmar, of course it's an idiom, but I don't think you can disassociate the literal from the figurative here. Bitch has a meaning and its derogatory. Son of a bitch has an idiomatic meaning applying to the objectional person and it too is derogatory.

Then again, maybe you have a point. A Double entendre isn't Trump's wheelhouse; he may think it's a French cuisine. He is too busy trying to draw faulty parallels.

I think Trump needs to avoid this vulgar language because it's a slippery slope when he mixes a deadly cocktail of politics, sports, racial tension, heritage, and plausible deniability.

SURGEON'S GENERAL WARNING: This cocktail may cause a racial tension headache.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2017-September-27, 09:23, said:

SOB is an idiom. It should not be interpreted literally. No one who calls someone else an SOB is thinking at all about the target's mother. He's just disparaging the target themselves.

Of course, one could interpret any disparagement of someone's character as a reflection of their parents, since they raised the person. But it's not the same as saying directly to the parent "How could you allow your child to act this way?"

It's bad enough that Trump insulted the athletes who are protesting. We don't have to impute additional motives that are almost certainly not there. Trump isn't that nuanced.

Trump is nuanced enough to know that Colin Kaepernick is not Caucasian.

[Winstonm]

RedSpawn, on 2017-September-27, 09:44, said:

Winston, wait it gets better. He then uses a Jamaican athlete, Usain Bolt, who shows respect for the US flag during the playing of the national anthem at the London 2012 Summer Olympics, as a prime example of a fine African-American knowing his place and behaving appropriately.

https://www.yahoo.co...-074828646.html

Please get Trump out of the Twitterverse! His politricks are not working. If he doesn't even have the time to conduct a proper due diligence and uses a faulty comparison, he should avoid any and all forms of rhetoric and electronic communications.

I have also read that he couldn't talk over the anthem so he stopped talking, but the video doesn't support that IMO.

[barmar]

RedSpawn, on 2017-September-27, 09:44, said:

If he doesn't even have the time to conduct a proper due diligence and uses a faulty comparison, he should avoid any and all forms of rhetoric and electronic communications.

Trump gets basic facts wrong all the time. We're probably stuck with him for the next 4 years (please let that be the limit!), and he's clearly not going to slow down his communication, so just get used to it.

I can actually sympathize with this particular gaffe. In the US, most of the words to refer to the negro race have become taboo, or at least politically incorrect, and "African-American" is currently the acceptable term. It's hard to know what the correct word is when you're referring to someone who isn't actually American.

Although I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Trump didn't realize that Bolt is not American. But with Trump, you'll drive yourself crazy unless you figure out how not to sweat the small stuff like this. Let's worry about his rhetoric with North Korea and calling for people to be fired for expressing their political views.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2017-September-28, 09:27, said:

Trump gets basic facts wrong all the time. We're probably stuck with him for the next 4 years (please let that be the limit!), and he's clearly not going to slow down his communication, so just get used to it.

I can actually sympathize with this particular gaffe. In the US, most of the words to refer to the negro race have become taboo, or at least politically incorrect, and "African-American" is currently the acceptable term.

Perhaps the correct term is "person", or maybe "man" or "woman" or "child".

Quote

....You Jake, that's how. You are my secret weapon because you are one of the bad guys. You don't mean to be but you are. It's how you was raised. Nigger, negro, black, African-american, no matter how you see me, you see me different....

And until we can see each other as equals, justice is never going to be even-handed. It will remain nothing more than a reflection of our own prejudices.... ― John Grisham, A Time to Kill

[helene_t]

barmar, on 2017-September-28, 09:27, said:

Although I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Trump didn't realize that Bolt is not American.

Isn't he? Does Afro-American mean "Afro-Unitedstatesian" or does it mean "Afro-Westernhemispherian"? In the former case, do black Texans count?

[Vampyr]

Winstonm, on 2017-September-28, 12:06, said:

Perhaps the correct term is "person", or maybe "man" or "woman" or "child".

Well, quite. But if you did want a word it would be "Afro-Caribbean".

In any case, let's see Trump continue to maintain that it's not about race...

[Winstonm]

Vampyr, on 2017-September-28, 14:59, said:

Well, quite. But if you did want a word it would be "Afro-Caribbean".

In any case, let's see Trump continue to maintain that it's not about race...

Country of origin should be enough. Why do we have to complicate it with a racial category?

As to Usain Bolt, how about Jamaican?

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2017-September-28, 12:06, said:

Perhaps the correct term is "person", or maybe "man" or "woman" or "child".

Suppose you were explaining what was special about Obama becoming President, could you replace "African-American" with "person"? If you're talking about the reason for the "Black Lives Matter" movement, would you say it's because cops have been killing too many unarmed people?

It would be nice if we lived in a post-racial world, where we didn't have to mention someone's skin color in conversations like these. But we don't, so we do.

The whole reason Trump used Bolt as an example was because he's black. Would it really have made sense for him to then ignore his race when talking about what he did?