Measure to force the President to undergo a mental exam.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
01 Sep 2017, 1:00 am
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Yes, a black man was elected twice, but all the hate directed at him was racial. The visibility of Alt Right white nationalism today is proof that racism hadn't ended with Obama's election.
Yes, birtherism was entirely racist. Even when there was no doubt about Obama's birthplace, birthers still called for his impeachment. Even today, there are racist loons who refuse to believe he's American born - - or at least use that as a pretext to thinly veil their racial hate.
Yes, birtherism was entirely racist. Even when there was no doubt about Obama's birthplace, birthers still called for his impeachment. Even today, there are racist loons who refuse to believe he's American born - - or at least use that as a pretext to thinly veil their racial hate.
I didn't say racism ended with Obama being elected twice. But it did show that racism was/is on a sharp decrease in America overall (if you can stop focusing on the alt-right for a second). How was trying to disqualify Obama as having been born outside the US racist? But anyways, obviously some refuse to celebrate a black man being elected as potus twice as substantial progress in racism and would rather fume over the silly birther issue. I think some people are so addicted to being outraged sjw types, they are unable/unwilling to acknowledge progress.
Are you seriously trying to say birtherism wasn't about race?!?! Sure, racism is in decline, but not among the people who entertained the birther fantasy. Just listen to the kind of things birthers said and still say, and it'll be hard to disagree about their racism. So just how is birtherism not racist? And on that point, if birthers weren't so racist, they'd realize that since Obama's mother was an American, so was he automatically, and thus eligible to be President.
And it should be pointed out, the new racism of today has been described as the denial that racism still exists. If it didn't, why are blacks disproportionately hassled, wrongly arrested, and even killed by the police? Why are blacks disproportionately convicted of drug crimes that most whites guilty of the same thing never see the inside of a prison for? Why is black unemployment so high? Why do so many blacks still have to depend on public assistance rather than a wage (here's a hint: it has nothing to do with laziness, or being chained to it by liberal social programs)? Why are blacks left to ethnic ghettos?
As far as I know, the attempt was to disqualify Obama as not being a natural born citizen. Race is not a factor in that constitutional law. And the term natural born citizen is not clearly defined. Many interpret it as meaning born in the United States. So the idea was that Obama was not born in the United States and that it was being kept a secret. Again this doesn't work on race, it works on nationality. Therefore it was not based on race. That's just a simple fact of how it's stated in the constitution. Now it was quite obvious that Obama is African American, so it wasn't a matter of trying to prove that. If it had been a situation where Obama was passing as white, and they were trying to disqualify him based on him having a black father, that would be based on race and make it racist. But that wasn't the case. Saying that racism no longer exists would obviously be a fallacy. It will always exist among all races. But it obviously no longer exists in America at a level where a black man wouldn't be elected potus twice. I don't think that would have been the case in the 50's, 60's, 70's 80's and maybe 90's. As time goes on less and less Americans care about someone's skin color. That doesn't mean it not still an issue, it means that it's not as much of an issue overall and becoming less of an issue as time goes on. I know my generation, those of us born in the 2000's, in the 21st century, don't care about it nearly as much overall as those born in the 1900's, in the previous century. It seems like a lot of people from your generation think America overall still has a 1970's level of racism.
Are you seriously saying that those birthers were only inspired by true blue patriotism, and not by racism? Race has nothing to do with one being President, but denial that Obama was born in America was called into question specifically because he's a black man with an African father. And no, I don't believe for a minute that a white President would have been put through the ringer as Obama had.
I have to wonder if you've chosen to defend birtherism only because Trump had been the leader of the birther pack for years. Yes, Virginia, Donald Trump is a racist.
Is any of that a fact that you can substantiate or is it all a matter of conjecture? The assertion that I have "chosen to defend birtherism" is non sequitur as I've already stated in the past that I thought it was ridiculous. Show me proof that challenging Obama being a natural born citizen was racist. Not conjecture based on "coded language" and the like. As strongly as you are asserting this as a fact, there should be solid evidence that you can present.
Do you deny the David Duke, and the denizens of Stormfront are racist? Because they, and people just like them were making those charges.
If you say you feel birtherism is ridiculous, I believe you. But as you concede it's without merit, why not also concede the obvious: that Obama was targeted by them because of his race?
I think he was more substantially targeted as a democrat president. A lot of people thought he was a lousy president and wanted him out of office. So they came up with a cockamamie attempt to remove him based on an interpretation of constitutional law. I just don't see any point in reading anything more into it than that.
People want Trump impeached and removed from office.
People wanted Obama impeached and removed from office.
People wanted Bush impeached and removed from office.
People wanted Clinton impeached and removed from office.
If Hillary Clinton had become president people would be wanting her impeached and removed from office. I figure most likely they would be trying to prove she has Parkinson's disease or a similar disorder making her unfit to be president. And I also figure many would be claiming that was based on misogyny.
Well, as Obama was sent to the White House twice, apparently most Americans didn't think him lousy at all.
The fact remains, there was clear racism - some blatant, others veiled - involved in birtherism.
And for the record, if there wasn't such evidence that Trump had help from a powerful, anti-democratic leader like Putin, I wouldn't be keen on him being impeached at all. Regardless, he's either going to be a one termer, or will declare victory and resign.
It's not a fact, because you can't provide evidence. Facts require evidence to be facts. Likewise there is no evidence that Trump received help from Putin. Everything you have said is based on conjecture, not fact.
We know Trump's people had talked to Putin's people, in one case Don Jr being told they'd dish dirt on Clinton. We know Paul Manafort, who had gone to work for Trump, had been Putin's American fixer in Ukraine - more than a little suspicious. We know how Wikileaks had been distributing dirt on Clinton for Trump, at Putin's behest. Soon, Muller will get Manafort, Flynn, and maybe even Kushner to talk about what they know.
Where there's smoke, there's fire. There is a helluva lot more there than the birthers ever had on Obama - - which was jack squat.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
01 Sep 2017, 1:16 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Yes, a black man was elected twice, but all the hate directed at him was racial. The visibility of Alt Right white nationalism today is proof that racism hadn't ended with Obama's election.
Yes, birtherism was entirely racist. Even when there was no doubt about Obama's birthplace, birthers still called for his impeachment. Even today, there are racist loons who refuse to believe he's American born - - or at least use that as a pretext to thinly veil their racial hate.
Yes, birtherism was entirely racist. Even when there was no doubt about Obama's birthplace, birthers still called for his impeachment. Even today, there are racist loons who refuse to believe he's American born - - or at least use that as a pretext to thinly veil their racial hate.
I didn't say racism ended with Obama being elected twice. But it did show that racism was/is on a sharp decrease in America overall (if you can stop focusing on the alt-right for a second). How was trying to disqualify Obama as having been born outside the US racist? But anyways, obviously some refuse to celebrate a black man being elected as potus twice as substantial progress in racism and would rather fume over the silly birther issue. I think some people are so addicted to being outraged sjw types, they are unable/unwilling to acknowledge progress.
Are you seriously trying to say birtherism wasn't about race?!?! Sure, racism is in decline, but not among the people who entertained the birther fantasy. Just listen to the kind of things birthers said and still say, and it'll be hard to disagree about their racism. So just how is birtherism not racist? And on that point, if birthers weren't so racist, they'd realize that since Obama's mother was an American, so was he automatically, and thus eligible to be President.
And it should be pointed out, the new racism of today has been described as the denial that racism still exists. If it didn't, why are blacks disproportionately hassled, wrongly arrested, and even killed by the police? Why are blacks disproportionately convicted of drug crimes that most whites guilty of the same thing never see the inside of a prison for? Why is black unemployment so high? Why do so many blacks still have to depend on public assistance rather than a wage (here's a hint: it has nothing to do with laziness, or being chained to it by liberal social programs)? Why are blacks left to ethnic ghettos?
As far as I know, the attempt was to disqualify Obama as not being a natural born citizen. Race is not a factor in that constitutional law. And the term natural born citizen is not clearly defined. Many interpret it as meaning born in the United States. So the idea was that Obama was not born in the United States and that it was being kept a secret. Again this doesn't work on race, it works on nationality. Therefore it was not based on race. That's just a simple fact of how it's stated in the constitution. Now it was quite obvious that Obama is African American, so it wasn't a matter of trying to prove that. If it had been a situation where Obama was passing as white, and they were trying to disqualify him based on him having a black father, that would be based on race and make it racist. But that wasn't the case. Saying that racism no longer exists would obviously be a fallacy. It will always exist among all races. But it obviously no longer exists in America at a level where a black man wouldn't be elected potus twice. I don't think that would have been the case in the 50's, 60's, 70's 80's and maybe 90's. As time goes on less and less Americans care about someone's skin color. That doesn't mean it not still an issue, it means that it's not as much of an issue overall and becoming less of an issue as time goes on. I know my generation, those of us born in the 2000's, in the 21st century, don't care about it nearly as much overall as those born in the 1900's, in the previous century. It seems like a lot of people from your generation think America overall still has a 1970's level of racism.
Are you seriously saying that those birthers were only inspired by true blue patriotism, and not by racism? Race has nothing to do with one being President, but denial that Obama was born in America was called into question specifically because he's a black man with an African father. And no, I don't believe for a minute that a white President would have been put through the ringer as Obama had.
I have to wonder if you've chosen to defend birtherism only because Trump had been the leader of the birther pack for years. Yes, Virginia, Donald Trump is a racist.
Is any of that a fact that you can substantiate or is it all a matter of conjecture? The assertion that I have "chosen to defend birtherism" is non sequitur as I've already stated in the past that I thought it was ridiculous. Show me proof that challenging Obama being a natural born citizen was racist. Not conjecture based on "coded language" and the like. As strongly as you are asserting this as a fact, there should be solid evidence that you can present.
Do you deny the David Duke, and the denizens of Stormfront are racist? Because they, and people just like them were making those charges.
If you say you feel birtherism is ridiculous, I believe you. But as you concede it's without merit, why not also concede the obvious: that Obama was targeted by them because of his race?
I think he was more substantially targeted as a democrat president. A lot of people thought he was a lousy president and wanted him out of office. So they came up with a cockamamie attempt to remove him based on an interpretation of constitutional law. I just don't see any point in reading anything more into it than that.
People want Trump impeached and removed from office.
People wanted Obama impeached and removed from office.
People wanted Bush impeached and removed from office.
People wanted Clinton impeached and removed from office.
If Hillary Clinton had become president people would be wanting her impeached and removed from office. I figure most likely they would be trying to prove she has Parkinson's disease or a similar disorder making her unfit to be president. And I also figure many would be claiming that was based on misogyny.
Well, as Obama was sent to the White House twice, apparently most Americans didn't think him lousy at all.
The fact remains, there was clear racism - some blatant, others veiled - involved in birtherism.
And for the record, if there wasn't such evidence that Trump had help from a powerful, anti-democratic leader like Putin, I wouldn't be keen on him being impeached at all. Regardless, he's either going to be a one termer, or will declare victory and resign.
It's not a fact, because you can't provide evidence. Facts require evidence to be facts. Likewise there is no evidence that Trump received help from Putin. Everything you have said is based on conjecture, not fact.
We know Trump's people had talked to Putin's people, in one case Don Jr being told they'd dish dirt on Clinton. We know Paul Manafort, who had gone to work for Trump, had been Putin's American fixer in Ukraine - more than a little suspicious. We know how Wikileaks had been distributing dirt on Clinton for Trump, at Putin's behest. Soon, Muller will get Manafort, Flynn, and maybe even Kushner to talk about what they know.
Where there's smoke, there's fire. There is a helluva lot more there than the birthers ever had on Obama - - which was jack squat.
"Where there's smoke there's fire" is not something someone says regarding something that's factual. As of now it all still remains a matter of suspicion. Also is there evidence that Wikileaks distributed dirt on Clinton, at Putin's behest, that I haven't heard about?
Just the facts - Joe Friday.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
01 Sep 2017, 1:30 am
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Yes, a black man was elected twice, but all the hate directed at him was racial. The visibility of Alt Right white nationalism today is proof that racism hadn't ended with Obama's election.
Yes, birtherism was entirely racist. Even when there was no doubt about Obama's birthplace, birthers still called for his impeachment. Even today, there are racist loons who refuse to believe he's American born - - or at least use that as a pretext to thinly veil their racial hate.
Yes, birtherism was entirely racist. Even when there was no doubt about Obama's birthplace, birthers still called for his impeachment. Even today, there are racist loons who refuse to believe he's American born - - or at least use that as a pretext to thinly veil their racial hate.
I didn't say racism ended with Obama being elected twice. But it did show that racism was/is on a sharp decrease in America overall (if you can stop focusing on the alt-right for a second). How was trying to disqualify Obama as having been born outside the US racist? But anyways, obviously some refuse to celebrate a black man being elected as potus twice as substantial progress in racism and would rather fume over the silly birther issue. I think some people are so addicted to being outraged sjw types, they are unable/unwilling to acknowledge progress.
Are you seriously trying to say birtherism wasn't about race?!?! Sure, racism is in decline, but not among the people who entertained the birther fantasy. Just listen to the kind of things birthers said and still say, and it'll be hard to disagree about their racism. So just how is birtherism not racist? And on that point, if birthers weren't so racist, they'd realize that since Obama's mother was an American, so was he automatically, and thus eligible to be President.
And it should be pointed out, the new racism of today has been described as the denial that racism still exists. If it didn't, why are blacks disproportionately hassled, wrongly arrested, and even killed by the police? Why are blacks disproportionately convicted of drug crimes that most whites guilty of the same thing never see the inside of a prison for? Why is black unemployment so high? Why do so many blacks still have to depend on public assistance rather than a wage (here's a hint: it has nothing to do with laziness, or being chained to it by liberal social programs)? Why are blacks left to ethnic ghettos?
As far as I know, the attempt was to disqualify Obama as not being a natural born citizen. Race is not a factor in that constitutional law. And the term natural born citizen is not clearly defined. Many interpret it as meaning born in the United States. So the idea was that Obama was not born in the United States and that it was being kept a secret. Again this doesn't work on race, it works on nationality. Therefore it was not based on race. That's just a simple fact of how it's stated in the constitution. Now it was quite obvious that Obama is African American, so it wasn't a matter of trying to prove that. If it had been a situation where Obama was passing as white, and they were trying to disqualify him based on him having a black father, that would be based on race and make it racist. But that wasn't the case. Saying that racism no longer exists would obviously be a fallacy. It will always exist among all races. But it obviously no longer exists in America at a level where a black man wouldn't be elected potus twice. I don't think that would have been the case in the 50's, 60's, 70's 80's and maybe 90's. As time goes on less and less Americans care about someone's skin color. That doesn't mean it not still an issue, it means that it's not as much of an issue overall and becoming less of an issue as time goes on. I know my generation, those of us born in the 2000's, in the 21st century, don't care about it nearly as much overall as those born in the 1900's, in the previous century. It seems like a lot of people from your generation think America overall still has a 1970's level of racism.
Are you seriously saying that those birthers were only inspired by true blue patriotism, and not by racism? Race has nothing to do with one being President, but denial that Obama was born in America was called into question specifically because he's a black man with an African father. And no, I don't believe for a minute that a white President would have been put through the ringer as Obama had.
I have to wonder if you've chosen to defend birtherism only because Trump had been the leader of the birther pack for years. Yes, Virginia, Donald Trump is a racist.
Is any of that a fact that you can substantiate or is it all a matter of conjecture? The assertion that I have "chosen to defend birtherism" is non sequitur as I've already stated in the past that I thought it was ridiculous. Show me proof that challenging Obama being a natural born citizen was racist. Not conjecture based on "coded language" and the like. As strongly as you are asserting this as a fact, there should be solid evidence that you can present.
Do you deny the David Duke, and the denizens of Stormfront are racist? Because they, and people just like them were making those charges.
If you say you feel birtherism is ridiculous, I believe you. But as you concede it's without merit, why not also concede the obvious: that Obama was targeted by them because of his race?
I think he was more substantially targeted as a democrat president. A lot of people thought he was a lousy president and wanted him out of office. So they came up with a cockamamie attempt to remove him based on an interpretation of constitutional law. I just don't see any point in reading anything more into it than that.
People want Trump impeached and removed from office.
People wanted Obama impeached and removed from office.
People wanted Bush impeached and removed from office.
People wanted Clinton impeached and removed from office.
If Hillary Clinton had become president people would be wanting her impeached and removed from office. I figure most likely they would be trying to prove she has Parkinson's disease or a similar disorder making her unfit to be president. And I also figure many would be claiming that was based on misogyny.
Well, as Obama was sent to the White House twice, apparently most Americans didn't think him lousy at all.
The fact remains, there was clear racism - some blatant, others veiled - involved in birtherism.
And for the record, if there wasn't such evidence that Trump had help from a powerful, anti-democratic leader like Putin, I wouldn't be keen on him being impeached at all. Regardless, he's either going to be a one termer, or will declare victory and resign.
It's not a fact, because you can't provide evidence. Facts require evidence to be facts. Likewise there is no evidence that Trump received help from Putin. Everything you have said is based on conjecture, not fact.
We know Trump's people had talked to Putin's people, in one case Don Jr being told they'd dish dirt on Clinton. We know Paul Manafort, who had gone to work for Trump, had been Putin's American fixer in Ukraine - more than a little suspicious. We know how Wikileaks had been distributing dirt on Clinton for Trump, at Putin's behest. Soon, Muller will get Manafort, Flynn, and maybe even Kushner to talk about what they know.
Where there's smoke, there's fire. There is a helluva lot more there than the birthers ever had on Obama - - which was jack squat.
"Where there's smoke there's fire" is not something someone says regarding something that's factual. As of now it all still remains a matter of suspicion. Also is there evidence that Wikileaks distributed dirt on Clinton, at Putin's behest, that I haven't heard about?
Just the facts - Joe Friday.
Wikileaks has had a chummy relationship with Vladimir Putin for the past years, providing his state run media with intelligence.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
01 Sep 2017, 4:54 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Yes, a black man was elected twice, but all the hate directed at him was racial. The visibility of Alt Right white nationalism today is proof that racism hadn't ended with Obama's election.
Yes, birtherism was entirely racist. Even when there was no doubt about Obama's birthplace, birthers still called for his impeachment. Even today, there are racist loons who refuse to believe he's American born - - or at least use that as a pretext to thinly veil their racial hate.
Yes, birtherism was entirely racist. Even when there was no doubt about Obama's birthplace, birthers still called for his impeachment. Even today, there are racist loons who refuse to believe he's American born - - or at least use that as a pretext to thinly veil their racial hate.
I didn't say racism ended with Obama being elected twice. But it did show that racism was/is on a sharp decrease in America overall (if you can stop focusing on the alt-right for a second). How was trying to disqualify Obama as having been born outside the US racist? But anyways, obviously some refuse to celebrate a black man being elected as potus twice as substantial progress in racism and would rather fume over the silly birther issue. I think some people are so addicted to being outraged sjw types, they are unable/unwilling to acknowledge progress.
Are you seriously trying to say birtherism wasn't about race?!?! Sure, racism is in decline, but not among the people who entertained the birther fantasy. Just listen to the kind of things birthers said and still say, and it'll be hard to disagree about their racism. So just how is birtherism not racist? And on that point, if birthers weren't so racist, they'd realize that since Obama's mother was an American, so was he automatically, and thus eligible to be President.
And it should be pointed out, the new racism of today has been described as the denial that racism still exists. If it didn't, why are blacks disproportionately hassled, wrongly arrested, and even killed by the police? Why are blacks disproportionately convicted of drug crimes that most whites guilty of the same thing never see the inside of a prison for? Why is black unemployment so high? Why do so many blacks still have to depend on public assistance rather than a wage (here's a hint: it has nothing to do with laziness, or being chained to it by liberal social programs)? Why are blacks left to ethnic ghettos?
As far as I know, the attempt was to disqualify Obama as not being a natural born citizen. Race is not a factor in that constitutional law. And the term natural born citizen is not clearly defined. Many interpret it as meaning born in the United States. So the idea was that Obama was not born in the United States and that it was being kept a secret. Again this doesn't work on race, it works on nationality. Therefore it was not based on race. That's just a simple fact of how it's stated in the constitution. Now it was quite obvious that Obama is African American, so it wasn't a matter of trying to prove that. If it had been a situation where Obama was passing as white, and they were trying to disqualify him based on him having a black father, that would be based on race and make it racist. But that wasn't the case. Saying that racism no longer exists would obviously be a fallacy. It will always exist among all races. But it obviously no longer exists in America at a level where a black man wouldn't be elected potus twice. I don't think that would have been the case in the 50's, 60's, 70's 80's and maybe 90's. As time goes on less and less Americans care about someone's skin color. That doesn't mean it not still an issue, it means that it's not as much of an issue overall and becoming less of an issue as time goes on. I know my generation, those of us born in the 2000's, in the 21st century, don't care about it nearly as much overall as those born in the 1900's, in the previous century. It seems like a lot of people from your generation think America overall still has a 1970's level of racism.
Are you seriously saying that those birthers were only inspired by true blue patriotism, and not by racism? Race has nothing to do with one being President, but denial that Obama was born in America was called into question specifically because he's a black man with an African father. And no, I don't believe for a minute that a white President would have been put through the ringer as Obama had.
I have to wonder if you've chosen to defend birtherism only because Trump had been the leader of the birther pack for years. Yes, Virginia, Donald Trump is a racist.
Is any of that a fact that you can substantiate or is it all a matter of conjecture? The assertion that I have "chosen to defend birtherism" is non sequitur as I've already stated in the past that I thought it was ridiculous. Show me proof that challenging Obama being a natural born citizen was racist. Not conjecture based on "coded language" and the like. As strongly as you are asserting this as a fact, there should be solid evidence that you can present.
Do you deny the David Duke, and the denizens of Stormfront are racist? Because they, and people just like them were making those charges.
If you say you feel birtherism is ridiculous, I believe you. But as you concede it's without merit, why not also concede the obvious: that Obama was targeted by them because of his race?
I think he was more substantially targeted as a democrat president. A lot of people thought he was a lousy president and wanted him out of office. So they came up with a cockamamie attempt to remove him based on an interpretation of constitutional law. I just don't see any point in reading anything more into it than that.
People want Trump impeached and removed from office.
People wanted Obama impeached and removed from office.
People wanted Bush impeached and removed from office.
People wanted Clinton impeached and removed from office.
If Hillary Clinton had become president people would be wanting her impeached and removed from office. I figure most likely they would be trying to prove she has Parkinson's disease or a similar disorder making her unfit to be president. And I also figure many would be claiming that was based on misogyny.
Well, as Obama was sent to the White House twice, apparently most Americans didn't think him lousy at all.
The fact remains, there was clear racism - some blatant, others veiled - involved in birtherism.
And for the record, if there wasn't such evidence that Trump had help from a powerful, anti-democratic leader like Putin, I wouldn't be keen on him being impeached at all. Regardless, he's either going to be a one termer, or will declare victory and resign.
It's not a fact, because you can't provide evidence. Facts require evidence to be facts. Likewise there is no evidence that Trump received help from Putin. Everything you have said is based on conjecture, not fact.
We know Trump's people had talked to Putin's people, in one case Don Jr being told they'd dish dirt on Clinton. We know Paul Manafort, who had gone to work for Trump, had been Putin's American fixer in Ukraine - more than a little suspicious. We know how Wikileaks had been distributing dirt on Clinton for Trump, at Putin's behest. Soon, Muller will get Manafort, Flynn, and maybe even Kushner to talk about what they know.
Where there's smoke, there's fire. There is a helluva lot more there than the birthers ever had on Obama - - which was jack squat.
"Where there's smoke there's fire" is not something someone says regarding something that's factual. As of now it all still remains a matter of suspicion. Also is there evidence that Wikileaks distributed dirt on Clinton, at Putin's behest, that I haven't heard about?
Just the facts - Joe Friday.
Wikileaks has had a chummy relationship with Vladimir Putin for the past years, providing his state run media with intelligence.
But that's not evidence that Putin had anything to do with Wikileaks publishing dirt on Clinton. It's just an accusation.
Mind you I don't think any of this stuff is beyond the realm of possibility. To me it's a matter of not counting chickens before they've hatched.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
01 Sep 2017, 10:28 am
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Yes, a black man was elected twice, but all the hate directed at him was racial. The visibility of Alt Right white nationalism today is proof that racism hadn't ended with Obama's election.
Yes, birtherism was entirely racist. Even when there was no doubt about Obama's birthplace, birthers still called for his impeachment. Even today, there are racist loons who refuse to believe he's American born - - or at least use that as a pretext to thinly veil their racial hate.
Yes, birtherism was entirely racist. Even when there was no doubt about Obama's birthplace, birthers still called for his impeachment. Even today, there are racist loons who refuse to believe he's American born - - or at least use that as a pretext to thinly veil their racial hate.
I didn't say racism ended with Obama being elected twice. But it did show that racism was/is on a sharp decrease in America overall (if you can stop focusing on the alt-right for a second). How was trying to disqualify Obama as having been born outside the US racist? But anyways, obviously some refuse to celebrate a black man being elected as potus twice as substantial progress in racism and would rather fume over the silly birther issue. I think some people are so addicted to being outraged sjw types, they are unable/unwilling to acknowledge progress.
Are you seriously trying to say birtherism wasn't about race?!?! Sure, racism is in decline, but not among the people who entertained the birther fantasy. Just listen to the kind of things birthers said and still say, and it'll be hard to disagree about their racism. So just how is birtherism not racist? And on that point, if birthers weren't so racist, they'd realize that since Obama's mother was an American, so was he automatically, and thus eligible to be President.
And it should be pointed out, the new racism of today has been described as the denial that racism still exists. If it didn't, why are blacks disproportionately hassled, wrongly arrested, and even killed by the police? Why are blacks disproportionately convicted of drug crimes that most whites guilty of the same thing never see the inside of a prison for? Why is black unemployment so high? Why do so many blacks still have to depend on public assistance rather than a wage (here's a hint: it has nothing to do with laziness, or being chained to it by liberal social programs)? Why are blacks left to ethnic ghettos?
As far as I know, the attempt was to disqualify Obama as not being a natural born citizen. Race is not a factor in that constitutional law. And the term natural born citizen is not clearly defined. Many interpret it as meaning born in the United States. So the idea was that Obama was not born in the United States and that it was being kept a secret. Again this doesn't work on race, it works on nationality. Therefore it was not based on race. That's just a simple fact of how it's stated in the constitution. Now it was quite obvious that Obama is African American, so it wasn't a matter of trying to prove that. If it had been a situation where Obama was passing as white, and they were trying to disqualify him based on him having a black father, that would be based on race and make it racist. But that wasn't the case. Saying that racism no longer exists would obviously be a fallacy. It will always exist among all races. But it obviously no longer exists in America at a level where a black man wouldn't be elected potus twice. I don't think that would have been the case in the 50's, 60's, 70's 80's and maybe 90's. As time goes on less and less Americans care about someone's skin color. That doesn't mean it not still an issue, it means that it's not as much of an issue overall and becoming less of an issue as time goes on. I know my generation, those of us born in the 2000's, in the 21st century, don't care about it nearly as much overall as those born in the 1900's, in the previous century. It seems like a lot of people from your generation think America overall still has a 1970's level of racism.
Are you seriously saying that those birthers were only inspired by true blue patriotism, and not by racism? Race has nothing to do with one being President, but denial that Obama was born in America was called into question specifically because he's a black man with an African father. And no, I don't believe for a minute that a white President would have been put through the ringer as Obama had.
I have to wonder if you've chosen to defend birtherism only because Trump had been the leader of the birther pack for years. Yes, Virginia, Donald Trump is a racist.
Is any of that a fact that you can substantiate or is it all a matter of conjecture? The assertion that I have "chosen to defend birtherism" is non sequitur as I've already stated in the past that I thought it was ridiculous. Show me proof that challenging Obama being a natural born citizen was racist. Not conjecture based on "coded language" and the like. As strongly as you are asserting this as a fact, there should be solid evidence that you can present.
Do you deny the David Duke, and the denizens of Stormfront are racist? Because they, and people just like them were making those charges.
If you say you feel birtherism is ridiculous, I believe you. But as you concede it's without merit, why not also concede the obvious: that Obama was targeted by them because of his race?
I think he was more substantially targeted as a democrat president. A lot of people thought he was a lousy president and wanted him out of office. So they came up with a cockamamie attempt to remove him based on an interpretation of constitutional law. I just don't see any point in reading anything more into it than that.
People want Trump impeached and removed from office.
People wanted Obama impeached and removed from office.
People wanted Bush impeached and removed from office.
People wanted Clinton impeached and removed from office.
If Hillary Clinton had become president people would be wanting her impeached and removed from office. I figure most likely they would be trying to prove she has Parkinson's disease or a similar disorder making her unfit to be president. And I also figure many would be claiming that was based on misogyny.
Well, as Obama was sent to the White House twice, apparently most Americans didn't think him lousy at all.
The fact remains, there was clear racism - some blatant, others veiled - involved in birtherism.
And for the record, if there wasn't such evidence that Trump had help from a powerful, anti-democratic leader like Putin, I wouldn't be keen on him being impeached at all. Regardless, he's either going to be a one termer, or will declare victory and resign.
It's not a fact, because you can't provide evidence. Facts require evidence to be facts. Likewise there is no evidence that Trump received help from Putin. Everything you have said is based on conjecture, not fact.
We know Trump's people had talked to Putin's people, in one case Don Jr being told they'd dish dirt on Clinton. We know Paul Manafort, who had gone to work for Trump, had been Putin's American fixer in Ukraine - more than a little suspicious. We know how Wikileaks had been distributing dirt on Clinton for Trump, at Putin's behest. Soon, Muller will get Manafort, Flynn, and maybe even Kushner to talk about what they know.
Where there's smoke, there's fire. There is a helluva lot more there than the birthers ever had on Obama - - which was jack squat.
"Where there's smoke there's fire" is not something someone says regarding something that's factual. As of now it all still remains a matter of suspicion. Also is there evidence that Wikileaks distributed dirt on Clinton, at Putin's behest, that I haven't heard about?
Just the facts - Joe Friday.
Wikileaks has had a chummy relationship with Vladimir Putin for the past years, providing his state run media with intelligence.
But that's not evidence that Putin had anything to do with Wikileaks publishing dirt on Clinton. It's just an accusation.
Mind you I don't think any of this stuff is beyond the realm of possibility. To me it's a matter of not counting chickens before they've hatched.
I believe the relationship between Wikileaks and Putin has been established.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
01 Sep 2017, 6:06 pm
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I believe the relationship between Wikileaks and Putin has been established.
So where is the evidence that Putin supplied Wikileaks with Clinton's emails?
Isn't that what investigators are now trying to sniff out? I notice "Trumpfans" throw around the word conspiracy and fake news (much like their mentor) but had no problems believing Hillary Clinton was involved in killing babies or that Obama was secretly whisked away to Kenya as a baby and became a muslim.
01 Sep 2017, 6:55 pm
cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I believe the relationship between Wikileaks and Putin has been established.
So where is the evidence that Putin supplied Wikileaks with Clinton's emails?
Isn't that what investigators are now trying to sniff out?
Of course. But until they find something, there's no evidence.
cyberdad wrote:
I notice "Trumpfans" throw around the word conspiracy and fake news (much like their mentor) but had no problems believing Hillary Clinton was involved in killing babies or that Obama was secretly whisked away to Kenya as a baby and became a muslim.
Really, that was on MSM every single day, several times a day, for months on end?
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
01 Sep 2017, 10:25 pm
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I believe the relationship between Wikileaks and Putin has been established.
So where is the evidence that Putin supplied Wikileaks with Clinton's emails?
Wikileaks has a relationship with Putin. Putin - and Wikileaks by extension - was helping out Trump. Not a leap in logic. Remember, the Watergate investigation had started out as educated guesses that with evidence were proven true.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
01 Sep 2017, 11:49 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I believe the relationship between Wikileaks and Putin has been established.
So where is the evidence that Putin supplied Wikileaks with Clinton's emails?
Wikileaks has a relationship with Putin. Putin - and Wikileaks by extension - was helping out Trump. Not a leap in logic. Remember, the Watergate investigation had started out as educated guesses that with evidence were proven true.
Since you're saying is they are educated guesses, I suppose that would mean you are saying nothing substantial has surfaced. So after a year since the July 2016 leak, apparently it's still just anonymous CIA sources saying unnamed Russian officials were involved.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
02 Sep 2017, 2:25 am
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I believe the relationship between Wikileaks and Putin has been established.
So where is the evidence that Putin supplied Wikileaks with Clinton's emails?
Wikileaks has a relationship with Putin. Putin - and Wikileaks by extension - was helping out Trump. Not a leap in logic. Remember, the Watergate investigation had started out as educated guesses that with evidence were proven true.
Since you're saying is they are educated guesses, I suppose that would mean you are saying nothing substantial has surfaced. So after a year since the July 2016 leak, apparently it's still just anonymous CIA sources saying unnamed Russian officials were involved.
No, when there are as many coincidences occurring all at once, then it's a good guess that it's not a coincidence.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
02 Sep 2017, 5:26 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I believe the relationship between Wikileaks and Putin has been established.
So where is the evidence that Putin supplied Wikileaks with Clinton's emails?
Wikileaks has a relationship with Putin. Putin - and Wikileaks by extension - was helping out Trump. Not a leap in logic. Remember, the Watergate investigation had started out as educated guesses that with evidence were proven true.
Since you're saying is they are educated guesses, I suppose that would mean you are saying nothing substantial has surfaced. So after a year since the July 2016 leak, apparently it's still just anonymous CIA sources saying unnamed Russian officials were involved.
No, when there are as many coincidences occurring all at once, then it's a good guess that it's not a coincidence.
True true no argument there. Things look a bit fishy. But it's still a guess at this point. He lied about ties to Russia but the ties could end up not amounting to anything. He could say he meant not the kind of ties that would nail him. I guess idk. I don't want to try thinking like he does. Might be dangerous.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
02 Sep 2017, 5:30 pm
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I believe the relationship between Wikileaks and Putin has been established.
So where is the evidence that Putin supplied Wikileaks with Clinton's emails?
Wikileaks has a relationship with Putin. Putin - and Wikileaks by extension - was helping out Trump. Not a leap in logic. Remember, the Watergate investigation had started out as educated guesses that with evidence were proven true.
Since you're saying is they are educated guesses, I suppose that would mean you are saying nothing substantial has surfaced. So after a year since the July 2016 leak, apparently it's still just anonymous CIA sources saying unnamed Russian officials were involved.
No, when there are as many coincidences occurring all at once, then it's a good guess that it's not a coincidence.
True true no argument there. Things look a bit fishy. But it's still a guess at this point. He lied about ties to Russia but the ties could end up not amounting to anything. He could say he meant not the kind of ties that would nail him. I guess idk. I don't want to try thinking like he does. Might be dangerous.
If Trump's Russian ties were so innocent, I fail to understand why he'd have to lie about it.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
02 Sep 2017, 7:24 pm
EzraS wrote:
True true no argument there. Things look a bit fishy. But it's still a guess at this point. He lied about ties to Russia but the ties could end up not amounting to anything. He could say he meant not the kind of ties that would nail him. I guess idk. I don't want to try thinking like he does. Might be dangerous.
Most curious, so why would he need to lie if he has nothing to hide? seems strange that his supporters and benafactors elected him on a platform that Hillary was (allegedly) dishonest yet he has lied almost every day of his presidency. It's almost as if he knows his support base don't care.
02 Sep 2017, 8:17 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I believe the relationship between Wikileaks and Putin has been established.
So where is the evidence that Putin supplied Wikileaks with Clinton's emails?
Wikileaks has a relationship with Putin. Putin - and Wikileaks by extension - was helping out Trump. Not a leap in logic. Remember, the Watergate investigation had started out as educated guesses that with evidence were proven true.
Since you're saying is they are educated guesses, I suppose that would mean you are saying nothing substantial has surfaced. So after a year since the July 2016 leak, apparently it's still just anonymous CIA sources saying unnamed Russian officials were involved.
No, when there are as many coincidences occurring all at once, then it's a good guess that it's not a coincidence.
True true no argument there. Things look a bit fishy. But it's still a guess at this point. He lied about ties to Russia but the ties could end up not amounting to anything. He could say he meant not the kind of ties that would nail him. I guess idk. I don't want to try thinking like he does. Might be dangerous.
If Trump's Russian ties were so innocent, I fail to understand why he'd have to lie about it.
My guess would be because of the huge stigma that's been applied to Russia.
02 Sep 2017, 8:22 pm
cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
True true no argument there. Things look a bit fishy. But it's still a guess at this point. He lied about ties to Russia but the ties could end up not amounting to anything. He could say he meant not the kind of ties that would nail him. I guess idk. I don't want to try thinking like he does. Might be dangerous.
Most curious, so why would he need to lie if he has nothing to hide? seems strange that his supporters and benefactors elected him on a platform that Hillary was (allegedly) dishonest yet he has lied almost every day of his presidency. It's almost as if he knows his support base don't care.
Hillary did lie and so did Obama, lets be realistic about that. But it could be a matter of context. Like "I don't have any wrongful ties to Russia". That is a possibility.
Last edited by EzraS on 02 Sep 2017, 8:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
|
Ruby Franke mental disoder?
in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions |
20 Mar 2024, 11:02 am |
|
Question about fear about calling 911 for mental health
in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions |
06 Apr 2024, 7:09 pm |
| Neurodiversity affirming practice and mental health |
04 Mar 2024, 10:43 am |
| Inpatient Mental Health Facility for Autistic Adults? (US) |
Yesterday, 6:59 am |
