Progressives, part 3...

posted by Spock

Well he didnt use that term "countries" so you cant just imply that is what he meant

Let me repost the quote for you.

"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, 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."

Yeah, he says 'countries'.  He says it explicitly with regard to where these women "originally came from," even though three of them "came from" America every bit as much as he did.  They have no more ties to nations and peoples in their heritage than he does to his.  They're no more or less from anywhere else than he is.

Context matters.  The entire statement shows him explicitly referencing countries and the comparison between governmental structures and policies.

Pretty weird thing to say about Brooklyn.

posted by geeblock

Sure, just seems like he continually minimizes white nationalist groups as minimal and non existent or just a few crazy people. While exaggerating antifa as having tons of people. To my knowledge antifa hasn’t killed anyone but mass shootings by those with ties to white supremacy seem to be on the rise 

last i checked, white hate groups arent blocking streets in major cities, fighting with cops, picketing at political rallies, going on national TV and screaming about how they are oppressed etc.......Also dont see elected politicians defending them either.  So I wouldnt say that anyone is "continually minimizing" or downplaying 8 white guys with a rebel flag somewhere.    I also call bullshit on your idea that "white supremacy is on the rise or even shooting from these so called people either.  

posted by geeblock

Sure, just seems like he continually minimizes white nationalist groups as minimal and non existent or just a few crazy people. While exaggerating antifa as having tons of people. To my knowledge antifa hasn’t killed anyone but mass shootings by those with ties to white supremacy seem to be on the rise 

There have been some white nationalist shootings, but they aren’t organized klan groups. The kid in Charleston didn’t go to some meetings and burn crosses like you imply. I’m not saying people aren’t racist, but there isn’t an organized group running around terrorizing people. And everyone condemns them when it happens. No one is supporting that stuff. 

You can watch Antifa rallies online, they happen monthly in Portland and wherever else. I’m not exaggerating anything. It’s just accepted because the leftists don’t find a problem with their violence. 

posted by Spock

Sure....if you want to think that he was talking about "countries" then I can think he was talking about their "districts"

Ummmm errrrkaay 

posted by iclfan2

It’s just accepted because the leftists don’t find a problem with their violence. 

I'm not sure this is why, particularly in the area.

My guess is, when it's your car or home or business getting damaged, you become an advocate of property rights (as opposed to collectivist rights) really quickly, if you weren't already.  I just don't think they know what to do about it.

As for those of a liberal bent elsewhere, I think they agree with the overall mission, even if they disagree with the violent means, and I think that puts them in a weird spot, where they don't want to condemn the sought ends, but they do condemn the means.

Think about it like this: Suppose that several years ago, there was an organized group of people who would follow military funerals that the WBC was planning on protesting in order to give the WBC picketers an old-fashioned, behind-the-woodshed ass beating (while hiding their identities, as the WBC survived off lawsuits for years).  The ends they seek ... to discourage the behavior of the WBC picketing while not allowing the WBC to sue them ... seems like the kind of thing you might applaud.

Now, obviously, their ends are violent, and you can't condone that.  It's violence, plain and simple.  Not self-defense.  Not war, with its rules of engagement.  It's assault.

How eagerly and quickly are you going to denounce their behavior?

posted by geeblock

Muslim people shouldn’t have to answer or condemn terrorist attacks everyday of their life.

I agree, but if you think the POTUS should have to condemn every racist attack (I don't), then it seems fair game that an elected Representative should as well.

posted by O-Trap

He's 100% talking with respect to countries.  There's no skirting that he was, indeed, talking about the countries from which they draw their heritage (but aren't from, sans one of them).

It's also a bit of a riff on the typical "if you don't like it, then leave" that people were saying during the Obama years, and more recently "promises" from various leftwingers after Trump got elected.

But, you know, Trump.  Everything he says is twisted into being some sort of racist dog whistle.  He lies all the time, right, except when he appears to be using racist coded language...then he's like, being totally honest and forthright.

posted by iclfan2

There have been some white nationalist shootings, but they aren’t organized klan groups. The kid in Charleston didn’t go to some meetings and burn crosses like you imply. I’m not saying people aren’t racist, but there isn’t an organized group running around terrorizing people. And everyone condemns them when it happens. No one is supporting that stuff. 

You can watch Antifa rallies online, they happen monthly in Portland and wherever else. I’m not exaggerating anything. It’s just accepted because the leftists don’t find a problem with their violence. 

I don’t think you have to go to rally’s, burn crosses, wear a hood to be follow their ideology. With the rise of internet you can subscribe to diff websites, chat rooms ect.. I guess that’s the difference between the numbers between me and you. I count those people 

posted by geeblock

Question are there more members of antifa or more members of white supremacy groups? Also which has killed people?

In the last several years since coming on the scene, Antifa has committed 100X the number of acts of violence.

Before Trump, white supremacist rallies had a handful of bigots, about two dozens cops, and a couple of leftwing virtue-signalers to shout at them.  Now, CNN and a few hundred people with masks show up...

posted by geeblock

I guess that’s the difference between the numbers between me and you. I count those people 

In other words, you make-up and imagine as much racism as you'd like. 

You started out with "all these members of white supremacy groups".  And when it was pointed out how tiny that number was, you then made the claim that most of the supporters at Trump rallys belong to those groups.  Now you're claiming membership is "in the heart" and not some actual thing.

Man, turning yourself into a victim seems like a lot of hard work.

posted by gut

In other words, you make-up and imagine as much racism as you'd like. 

You started out with "all these members of white supremacy groups".  And when it was pointed out how tiny that number was, you then made the claim that most of the supporters at Trump rallys belong to those groups.  Now you're claiming membership is "in the heart" and not some actual thing.

Man, turning yourself into a victim seems like a lot of hard work.

I don’t think it was pointed out it’s a very small number at all. And when I say white supremacy groups I don’t think you have to show up at a meeting every week to be a member. You can have your opinion and I’ll have mine. Not sure what you mean about me being a victim, I’m fine. I try to speak out for those not as fortunate as myself. A foreign concept for you 

posted by gut

It's also a bit of a riff on the typical "if you don't like it, then leave" that people were saying during the Obama years, and more recently "promises" from various leftwingers after Trump got elected.

But, you know, Trump.  Everything he says is twisted into being some sort of racist dog whistle.  He lies all the time, right, except when he appears to be using racist coded language...then he's like, being totally honest and forthright.

Oh, I think his point was to drive the "if you don't like it, leave," but I think the "back where they came from" language alluded to how he sees them.  I don't think it was the intended point to say that they're from somewhere else.  I think it was closer to just a slip than anything.

As for when he'd be lying versus when he'd be telling the truth, you do have to take motive into account, so I can see believing him in certain scenarios, when it seems least like he's trying to depict himself as a good guy.  Having said that, he's kind of a spaz monkey, so I'm not sure we really know his motives.

As for the idea of dog whistles, I'm getting tired of that concept altogether.  I'm not saying that they don't exist, but if we're able to be rational (a tall order, I know), we can effectively draw the lines where they should be and avoid any fear of dog whistles anyway.  Chris Pratt was fucking crucified for wearing that Gadsden flag shirt, and everyone was saying that it was because the Gadsden flag is a racist dog whistle.  GTFO with that.

posted by geeblock

I don’t think it was pointed out it’s a very small number at all. And when I say white supremacy groups I don’t think you have to show up at a meeting every week to be a member. You can have your opinion and I’ll have mine. Not sure what you mean about me being a victim, I’m fine. I try to speak out for those not as fortunate as myself. A foreign concept for you 

You mean we can have facts, and you can have your fantasy.

It WAS pointed out it's a small number.  And, actually, in recent years it's anti-muslim and black separatist groups that have been on the rise, while white supremacy groups have been declining.  Doesn't fit with your belief system, so you just reject reality.

posted by O-Trap

As for the idea of dog whistles, I'm getting tired of that concept altogether.

I've always found it ironic that "dog whistle" usually involves someone who isn't supposed to be able to hear it, explaining what it means.  It's mainly become a tool for media to drive their narrative when cherrypicking quotes out-of-context doesn't get the job done.

Other politicians choose their words very carefully to minimize their words being twisted.  Trump doesn't care.  I also don't think he's some evil genius who deliberately uses words that have special meaning only to the far right and far left.

posted by Spock

Well he didnt use that term "countries" so you cant just imply that is what he meant

Buddy he literally said the word countries. 

posted by gut

You mean we can have facts, and you can have your fantasy.

It WAS pointed out it's a small number.  And, actually, in recent years it's anti-muslim and black separatist groups that have been on the rise, while white supremacy groups have been declining.  Doesn't fit with your belief system, so you just reject reality.

 

He gave his OPINION. Anyway we have had this conversation and we can agree to disagree. You seem like the type of person who would go to a Lamaze class and tell the women there what being pregnant is really like because you read it on the internet or in a book. 

The sad thing is that I'm not even remotely surprised that CC went full-on Trump apologist over his remarks to "the squad".

posted by gut

I've always found it ironic that "dog whistle" usually involves someone who isn't supposed to be able to hear it, explaining what it means.  It's mainly become a tool for media to drive their narrative when cherrypicking quotes out-of-context doesn't get the job done.

Other politicians choose their words very carefully to minimize their words being twisted.  Trump doesn't care.  I also don't think he's some evil genius who deliberately uses words that have special meaning only to the far right and far left.

The entire concept of calling out something as a dog whistle just seems intellectually lazy, to me.  By its very definition, you're not supposed to be able to attribute the dog's actions to the whistle, because there's no sensory evidence to human beings.  So, the parallel is that you have something that allegedly represents something else without any direct connection to it.

In other words, "We don't have any evidence to connect this thing to that ideology, but we think it's connected, so it is."

It's basically just a way to legitimize not needing proof of a connection between two things to call them connected.

posted by Fab4Runner

Buddy he literally said the word countries. 

He literally did not.  Never typed that word in that tweet.  If you have a link then post it please.

Fuck's sake, CC.  I've posted the entire quote twice already.

For a third time ...

Tweeted by 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, 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."

Read that first sentence to yourself a couple times.  Now a couple more.

Have you found it yet?